Causes of the The War Between the States - A Southern Perspective
For more than 40 years Southerners spoke of "disunion" over a variety of issues. By the time Abraham Lincoln was elected president a single issue, the rise of the abolitionists, became the focal point of Southerners. Tariffs Tariffs were permitted in the Constitution to allow the United States to generate revenue. The first act, the Tariff Act of 1789, did just that, fairly raising revenue through tariffs on imported goods. In the Tariff of 1816, however, the United States tariff structure changed from revenue producing to protectionist. These protectionist tariffs had been proposed by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton back in 1789 but the concept was pretty much ignored. Hamilton's original reason was promote the industrialization of the North. Tariffs levied in 1816 were aimed at lucrative Southern markets. Many Northern politicians were looking at wealthy plantation owners and wanting to share that wealth with their constituents and tariffs were the means by which to accomplish this goal. Protectionist fervor, fanned by pre-1816 success creating industrial growth through the Embargo Act was somewhat muted by shippers and merchants who opposed tariffs, but in 1820 and 1824 the United States once again was trying to increase tariffs. The Tariff of 1828 precipitated the first secessionist crisis, in South Carolina in 1832. The battle pitted Vice-President John C. Calhoun against President Andy Jackson, ending with the Nullification Crisis.
http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Abraham_Lincoln (http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Abraham_Lincoln)
There is more info covering the other individuals at the same site......
Elmer...........I posted this especially for you.
EDITED: shortened up the post, per hokie's request -taxed
Hokie, you need to shorten this, it violates copy right laws.
Only post a couple of short paragraphs, that goes for all articles.
Thanks.
OK...How. My screen doesn't have modify or edit. Can the moderator do it?..or atleast give me the button back.
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 14, 2012, 04:47:21 PM
OK...How. My screen doesn't have modify or edit. Can the moderator do it?..or atleast give me the button back.
I'll have Walks do it, you get about 25 minutes to edit, after that, it disappears.
Here is the link for the entire article as originally posted.
BTW....thanks for the help and gettin' my ass out of a potential fire. I own a copyright as well and do not want someone stepping on it also.
http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/southerncauses.html (http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/southerncauses.html)
Why is the modify tool removed after a time limit.....just askin'.
I think it's important to note this excerpt from the original post:
"Many Northern politicians were looking at wealthy plantation owners and wanting to share that wealth with their constituents and tariffs were the means by which to accomplish this goal."
The thing is, secession was, at root, caused by the perceived threat to the existence of slavery. As this excerpt points out, the onerousness of the tariffs were even mostly about slavery.
The truth is, both sides were equally responsible for the "war of northern aggression." If both sides had had perfect ESP, enabling them to see the next 4 years, they would have avoided war at almost any cost. The northern radicals would have embraced, or at least accepted as the lesser of two evils, compensating slave owners. The south would have accepted that, too. But war, being such a "glorious" undertaking (mostly for those who are not participating in it, though), and fire eaters being so persuasive, that just didn't happen.
In a nutshell:
Firing on Ft. Sumter was the immediate cause.
Secession was the action that led to the firing on the fort.
The perceived threat to slavery was the reason states seceded.
It is true that the north did not prosecute the war to free slaves. It was prosecuted to restore the union. But anybody who says the perceived threat to slavery was not the cause for secession has to ignore an awful lot of history. And when they trot out something to support it was tariffs, as in the original post, it invariably gets linked to slavery.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 15, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
I think it's important to note this excerpt from the original post:
"Many Northern politicians were looking at wealthy plantation owners and wanting to share that wealth with their constituents and tariffs were the means by which to accomplish this goal."
The thing is, secession was, at root, caused by the perceived threat to the existence of slavery. As this excerpt points out, the onerousness of the tariffs were even mostly about slavery.
The truth is, both sides were equally responsible for the "war of northern aggression." If both sides had had perfect ESP, enabling them to see the next 4 years, they would have avoided war at almost any cost. The northern radicals would have embraced, or at least accepted as the lesser of two evils, compensating slave owners. The south would have accepted that, too. But war, being such a "glorious" undertaking (mostly for those who are not participating in it, though), and fire eaters being so persuasive, that just didn't happen.
In a nutshell:
Firing on Ft. Sumter was the immediate cause.
Secession was the action that led to the firing on the fort.
The perceived threat to slavery was the reason states seceded.
It is true that the north did not prosecute the war to free slaves. It was prosecuted to restore the union. But anybody who says the perceived threat to slavery was not the cause for secession has to ignore an awful lot of history. And when they trot out something to support it was tariffs, as in the original post, it invariably gets linked to slavery.
Elmer?......did you read the entire story at the link? Sort of steers you away from your way of thinking......
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 15, 2012, 01:40:27 PM
Elmer?......did you read the entire story at the link? Sort of steers you away from your way of thinking......
Yes, I read it.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 15, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
Yes, I read it.
But I am not sure you read it much of your own link. Here's more:
The link:
http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/northerncauses.html (http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/northerncauses.html)
An excerpt:
It is true that the single, simple answer to the question "What caused the Civil War?" is slavery, but the causes of The Civil War are by no means simple, and saying slavery caused the Civil War is somewhat akin to saying the invention of the printing press caused the Enlightenment. While the two are inextricably tied together, and one probably would not have happened without the other, the invention of the printing press was not the only element that contributed to The Enlightenment.
The same can be said about the Civil War. Without slavery, the divisions that split our nation probably would not have occurred, but slavery was not the only cause of the war.Emphasis added. There is simply no way around it. The perceived threat to slavery is the ONLY thing that prompted secession.
Those other "threats" to secede over tariffs? Saber rattling. Nothing more. The proof is in the history books. Did secession occur? No. Did it occur when the southern slave owners thought their source of wealth was in danger of being voted out of existence? Yes. They said as much in their secession speeches. Nary a word on "tariffs."
'probably'? means unsure, without a full commitment.
But I do see where the article said tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.
'Slavery was not the only cause'........I notice you didn't increase the size of THAT text.
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 16, 2012, 01:28:53 AM
'probably'? means unsure, without a full commitment.
But I do see where the article said tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.
'Slavery was not the only cause'........I notice you didn't increase the size of THAT text.
No, but I also didn't edit it out. The sentence, as written, is obviously from a person who desperately wants it not to be primarily about slavery but who recognizes there is too much evidence to the contrary. It says "without slavery, the divisions that split our country probably would not have occurred." That's an understatement. The history of this country from its founding through the firing on Ft. Sumter clearly indicates that is ABSOLUTELY the case. It was slavery, slavery, slavery. Period. But you cannot change your mind, and I don't expect you to. It's been fun.
The tariffs were onerous because they were a direct result of the north trying to get their pound of flesh out of the slavers. It always goes back to the perceived threat to the existence of slavery. I do not see how any rational human being can assert otherwise, especially after reading the secession speeches themselves. But I have had this conversation with people who DID read the secession speeches and then, in the very next breath, would say the winners get to write the history and slavery had nothing to do with that war. They believed the speeches were faked by the victors. Seriously.
Quote from: elmerfudd on March 17, 2012, 11:33:02 AM
The tariffs were onerous because they were a direct result of the north trying to get their pound of flesh out of the slavers.
Well then. If this be the case then slavery was never the issue because if the north was ALSO making money off of slavery why would the north want to end it?
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 18, 2012, 04:07:15 AM
Well then. If this be the case then slavery was never the issue because if the north was ALSO making money off of slavery why would the north want to end it?
Many in the north did not care one way or the other. But the fire eaters in the south believed, wholeheartedly, that if free states ever outnumbered slave states the "peculiar institution" was doomed. They said so in speech after speech, document after document. Upon the election of Lincoln, who categoricaly stated his goal was to preserve the union, not to end slavery where it then existed, those same fire eaters decided it was time to secede. Why? They stated their reasons in their speeches. Because of the perceived threat to slavery, the source of their great wealth. So they dissolved the union. War resulted, not to end slavery but to preserve the union. When it became apparent that the north needed a little more motivation for continuing the war (many were getting tired of the bloodshed and figured it was best to let the south go and take their nigras with them), Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, to give a "moral" basis for continuing the war. He also waited until there had been a couple of spine stiffening union victories before doing so. He was, after all, a master politician.
Then, having issued that Emancipation Proclamation (which freed no one when issued), he was pretty well committed to ending slavery permanently, assuming the north won the war. Which they did.
An amendment permanently abolishing slavery then followed, because it was the issue that led to secession, and secession was the issue that led to war.
Why is that so hard to admit? What it is that makes "it was tariffs, not slavery" people hang on that mantra in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, and absolutely none (at least not credible evidence) in favor?
HA! Lincoln was a racist. He never believe the races could ever mix and wanted to buy the slaves and send them to what is now known as Liberia.
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 19, 2012, 12:50:00 PM
HA! Lincoln was a racist. He never believe the races could ever mix and wanted to buy the slaves and send them to what is now known as Liberia.
I agree he was a racist. He certainly told racist jokes. And he did not believe blacks were the intellectual or cultural equal of whites. I know the Liberia idea cropped up well before he was in office, and I guess he supported purchasing slaves and shipping them to Liberia. I'll defer to you on that. But none of this is relevant to a discussion of what caused the civil war.
Secession caused it. But what caused secession?
The perceived threat to the existence of slavery.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
Hogwash yourself Elmer.....I said tariffs as well as other things but it wasn't slavery....that came much later in the war.
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.
Here's some food for thought.
http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/34491 (http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/34491)
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Mississippi_causes.htm (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.
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 (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.
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"
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............
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on May 01, 2012, 02:47:44 PM
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.
Obfuscation, nothing more. (For one thing, coffee isn't food.)
I doubt VERY seriously anybody joined the Confederate Army expecting 3 hot meals as a result. I also doubt VERY seriously anybody thought the hunger being experienced in the South was caused by the North and, therefore, had anything to do with decisions to secede. But I do appreciate your busting the myth of the noble Southern warrior rallying 'round the flag. Some did, of course, especially early on. But you're right, were it not for conscription and hunting deserters, the Confederate ranks would have, indeed, been thinner. (Not to let the Yankees escape. They drafted and hunted deserters, too. And it's telling that a significant percentage, maybe even a majority, of the greatest generation that served in WWII were also drafted.)
Your conclusion about the causes of the War of Northern Aggression is simply unsupported by any rational investigation of the facts. But it's been fun. I wish you well.
Quote from: elmerfudd on May 02, 2012, 06:48:44 AM
Obfuscation, nothing more. (For one thing, coffee isn't food.)
I doubt VERY seriously anybody joined the Confederate Army expecting 3 hot meals as a result. I also doubt VERY seriously anybody thought the hunger being experienced in the South was caused by the North and, therefore, had anything to do with decisions to secede. But I do appreciate your busting the myth of the noble Southern warrior rallying 'round the flag. Some did, of course, especially early on. But you're right, were it not for conscription and hunting deserters, the Confederate ranks would have, indeed, been thinner. (Not to let the Yankees escape. They drafted and hunted deserters, too. And it's telling that a significant percentage, maybe even a majority, of the greatest generation that served in WWII were also drafted.)
Your conclusion about the causes of the War of Northern Aggression is simply unsupported by any rational investigation of the facts. But it's been fun. I wish you well.
Neither is tea but I remember reading about a bunch of it being dumped in Boston Harbor.
I have slogged through all these posts, and I can't believe that no one has pointed out that the actual cause of the "War of Northern Aggression," as you southerners like to call it, was the threat to the South's economy. Elmer, you squeal, "It was slavery, slavery, slavery!" as if slavery was a religion in the Old South. It was an institution, a way of life, yes, but for economic reasons. But it was not a religion, and would never, by itself, be grounds for secession or war.
People fight for survival, for food, for water, for money and/or power that will get them both. They don't fight wars for institutions like slavery unless the institution in question is a key to survival. In 1860, in the Old South, slavery was a key to economic survival, the linch-pin of the economy. Thirty years before efficient mechanization came along, relatively "free" slave labor was the one thing that made King Cotton king. A threat to slavery was a direct and potentially lethal threat to the world that was the Old South.
Of course I agree that secession caused the war, and the threat to slavery caused the secessions. But you have to take it just one little step further to understand the REAL cause of the war. The threat to slavery equated to a threat to wealth, to property, to production, to the ability literally to survive. Without slavery, the economies of every Deep South state would have collapsed overnight. The primary reason western Virginians lopped off a chunk of Virginia and formed West Virginia in the middle of the war was not because western Virginians didn't own slaves or favor slavery. It was because they had no need for slaves and had formed an economy and a way of life that did not include it, and they wanted no part of the belligerent Confederacy.
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 17, 2012, 06:52:05 PM
I have slogged through all these posts, and I can't believe that no one has pointed out that the actual cause of the "War of Northern Aggression," as you southerners like to call it, was the threat to the South's economy. Elmer, you squeal, "It was slavery, slavery, slavery!" as if slavery was a religion in the Old South. It was an institution, a way of life, yes, but for economic reasons. But it was not a religion, and would never, by itself, be grounds for secession or war.
People fight for survival, for food, for water, for money and/or power that will get them both. They don't fight wars for institutions like slavery unless the institution in question is a key to survival. In 1860, in the Old South, slavery was a key to economic survival, the linch-pin of the economy. Thirty years before efficient mechanization came along, relatively "free" slave labor was the one thing that made King Cotton king. A threat to slavery was a direct and potentially lethal threat to the world that was the Old South.
Of course I agree that secession caused the war, and the threat to slavery caused the secessions. But you have to take it just one little step further to understand the REAL cause of the war. The threat to slavery equated to a threat to wealth, to property, to production, to the ability literally to survive. Without slavery, the economies of every Deep South state would have collapsed overnight. The primary reason western Virginians lopped off a chunk of Virginia and formed West Virginia in the middle of the war was not because western Virginians didn't own slaves or favor slavery. It was because they had no need for slaves and had formed an economy and a way of life that did not include it, and they wanted no part of the belligerent Confederacy.
Thanks for agreeing with me. As I said before, it was the perceived threat to slavery that caused secession. The slavery that was described as the "greatest source of wealth" or some such in secession speeches. And it's ridiculous to assume that the economy of the south would have collapsed overnight without slavery.
Yes, there were a few very rich people in the south pre war of northern aggression. But not much middle class. Mostly peckerwoods and slaves. Share cropping and hired hands could easily (and less expensively) replaced slavery. In fact, they did. What destroyed the south's economy was the war we brought on ourselves and the "reconstruction" that followed it.
No one seems to have taken into account the simple fact that the South had their own currency.
They knew if they were to lose the war, all their holdings would become null and void overnight and it did.
Quote from: elmerfudd on May 18, 2012, 04:18:05 PM
Thanks for agreeing with me. As I said before, it was the perceived threat to slavery that caused secession. The slavery that was described as the "greatest source of wealth" or some such in secession speeches. And it's ridiculous to assume that the economy of the south would have collapsed overnight without slavery.
Yes, there were a few very rich people in the south pre war of northern aggression. But not much middle class. Mostly peckerwoods and slaves. Share cropping and hired hands could easily (and less expensively) replaced slavery. In fact, they did. What destroyed the south's economy was the war we brought on ourselves and the "reconstruction" that followed it.
I didn't agree with you, and you know that, although I don't mind a rare note of harmony between us. :biggrin:
What I said quite clearly was that it was the perceived threat to the ECONOMY of the South that brought about secession and, as a result, the war. The fact that slavery entered the equation is historical happenstance. It could have easily been something else, such as control of the patents and manufacture of the cotton gin. It could have been free access to the high seas -- almost every Confederate state had a seacoast. Hell, it might have been a ban on mint juleps.
I don't like to repeat it, but it's true and it's important to this conversation, so... without slavery, the economy of the South would have collapsed. In the pre-mechanical age, NOTHING could pick cotton with the investment efficiency of a subsistence-based slave. Actually, no other method besides human hands was available at that time, and there were no human hands nearly as cheap as the black ones. Your blather about sharecroppers and hired hands is just piffle, so much noise.
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 18, 2012, 08:54:06 PM
I didn't agree with you, and you know that, although I don't mind a rare note of harmony between us. :biggrin:
What I said quite clearly was that it was the perceived threat to the ECONOMY of the South that brought about secession and, as a result, the war. The fact that slavery entered the equation is historical happenstance. It could have easily been something else, such as control of the patents and manufacture of the cotton gin. It could have been free access to the high seas -- almost every Confederate state had a seacoast. Hell, it might have been a ban on mint juleps.
I don't like to repeat it, but it's true and it's important to this conversation, so... without slavery, the economy of the South would have collapsed. In the pre-mechanical age, NOTHING could pick cotton with the investment efficiency of a subsistence-based slave. Actually, no other method besides human hands was available at that time, and there were no human hands nearly as cheap as the black ones. Your blather about sharecroppers and hired hands is just piffle, so much noise.
The part of your response I put in a bigger font is utter, complete, laughable hogwash.
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 18, 2012, 08:54:06 PM
I didn't agree with you, and you know that, although I don't mind a rare note of harmony between us. :biggrin:
What I said quite clearly was that it was the perceived threat to the ECONOMY of the South that brought about secession and, as a result, the war. The fact that slavery entered the equation is historical happenstance. It could have easily been something else, such as control of the patents and manufacture of the cotton gin. It could have been free access to the high seas -- almost every Confederate state had a seacoast. Hell, it might have been a ban on mint juleps.
I don't like to repeat it, but it's true and it's important to this conversation, so... without slavery, the economy of the South would have collapsed. In the pre-mechanical age, NOTHING could pick cotton with the investment efficiency of a subsistence-based slave. Actually, no other method besides human hands was available at that time, and there were no human hands nearly as cheap as the black ones. Your blather about sharecroppers and hired hands is just piffle, so much noise.
After reading this
http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/34491 (http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/34491)
William L. Harris, the Mississippi secession commissioner to Georgia, addressed a joint session of the General Assembly at noon at the capitol in Milledgeville. He urged secession and concluded his speech by saying that Mississippi "had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race." (By John Osborne)
Source Citation
Charles B. Dew, Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Cause of the Civil War (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 2001), 29-30
do you still maintain the perceived threat to slavery was merely an economic issue?
Quote from: elmerfudd on May 28, 2012, 08:29:18 AM
After reading this
http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/34491 (http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/34491)
William L. Harris, the Mississippi secession commissioner to Georgia, addressed a joint session of the General Assembly at noon at the capitol in Milledgeville. He urged secession and concluded his speech by saying that Mississippi "had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race." (By John Osborne)
Source Citation
Charles B. Dew, Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Cause of the Civil War (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 2001), 29-30
do you still maintain the perceived threat to slavery was merely an economic issue?
Why would the words of a single racist change my mind?
In the same speech, Harris also said this:
QuoteOur fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality.
These are unmistakably the words of a true racist, someone who literally and deeply believes that another race of people is inferior to his own. But Harris stands out in that respect, and you would be foolish to project his mindset on the entire South. I'm not saying that he was the only racist in the South; there were plenty south AND north of the Mason-Dixon Line. What I'm saying is that most of the argument for secession centered on economic issues, and slavery, despite its obvious racial aspects, was very much an economic issue for Southerners.
This racist judge did not mention the tariffs on southern goods that were crippling the economy, but most others certainly did. And even Harris touches on the economic aspects of slavery at other points in his speech. For example:
QuoteOur Constitution, in unmistakable language, guarantees the return of our fugitive slaves. [Not because they were black, but because they were considered chattel.] Congress has recognized her duty in this respect, by enacting proper laws for the enforcement of this right. And yet these laws have been continually nullified, and the solemn pledge of the Compromise of 1850, by which the North came under renewed obligations to enforce them, has been faithlessly disregarded, and the government and its officers set at defiance.
He spoke again of the Missouri Compromise, which in part was designed to protect the concept of slaves as property in the South:
QuoteIt will be remembered, that the violation of our constitutional rights, which has caused such universal dissatisfaction in the South, is not of recent date. Ten years since, this Union was rocked from centre to circumference, by the very same outrages, of which we now complain, only now "aggravated" by the recent election. Nothing but her devotion to the Union our Fathers made, induced the South, then, to yield to a compromise, in which Mr. Clay rightly said, we had yielded everything but our honor. We had then in Mississippi a warm contest, which finally ended in reluctant acquiescence in the Compromise measures. The North pledged anew her faith to yield to us our constitutional rights in relation to slave property. They are now, and have been ever since that act, denied to us, until her broken faith and impudent threats, had become almost insufferable before the late election.
If a rabid racist like Harris could see the economic importance of slavery, why can't you?
Let me try to put it in perspective. Samuel H. Williamson at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Louis P. Cain at Loyala University Chicago collaborated on a paper entitled "Measuring Worth: Measuring Slavery in 2009$." Here's a snip from the abstract:
QuoteThe average price of a slave in 1860 was $800 [1860 dollars] and the economic magnitude of that price in today's values ranges from $17,000 to $266,000, depending on the index used. In that year, there were an estimated four million slaves living in the South and it is estimated that their aggregate market value was over $3 billion then. That corresponds to $10 trillion today (as a share of GDP).
You can read the whole paper here: http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php (http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php)
You see, if I accept your line of thinking, then I have to believe that thousands of Southerners invested the modern equivalent of between $17,000 and $266,000 per slave, and they had collectively made that investment 4 million times, but these people did not realize that a threat to slavery was a threat to the economy of the South.
Nah.
So yeah, I "still maintain the perceived threat to slavery was merely an economic issue."
Quote from: tbone0106 on June 01, 2012, 08:56:08 AM
Why would the words of a single racist change my mind?
In the same speech, Harris also said this:
These are unmistakably the words of a true racist, someone who literally and deeply believes that another race of people is inferior to his own. But Harris stands out in that respect, and you would be foolish to project his mindset on the entire South. I'm not saying that he was the only racist in the South; there were plenty south AND north of the Mason-Dixon Line. What I'm saying is that most of the argument for secession centered on economic issues, and slavery, despite its obvious racial aspects, was very much an economic issue for Southerners.
This racist judge did not mention the tariffs on southern goods that were crippling the economy, but most others certainly did. And even Harris touches on the economic aspects of slavery at other points in his speech. For example:
He spoke again of the Missouri Compromise, which in part was designed to protect the concept of slaves as property in the South:
If a rabid racist like Harris could see the economic importance of slavery, why can't you?
Let me try to put it in perspective. Samuel H. Williamson at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Louis P. Cain at Loyala University Chicago collaborated on a paper entitled "Measuring Worth: Measuring Slavery in 2009$." Here's a snip from the abstract:
You can read the whole paper here: http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php (http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php)
You see, if I accept your line of thinking, then I have to believe that thousands of Southerners invested the modern equivalent of between $17,000 and $266,000 per slave, and they had collectively made that investment 4 million times, but these people did not realize that a threat to slavery was a threat to the economy of the South.
Nah.
So yeah, I "still maintain the perceived threat to slavery was merely an economic issue."
I know a lot of people who never let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions. They have minds like a steel trap. Nothing ever gets in and nothing ever gets out.
Quote from: elmerfudd on June 02, 2012, 08:43:22 AM
I know a lot of people who never let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions. They have minds like a steel trap. Nothing ever gets in and nothing ever gets out.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Of like minds, I see.
Quote from: elmerfudd on June 02, 2012, 08:43:22 AM
I know a lot of people who never let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions. They have minds like a steel trap. Nothing ever gets in and nothing ever gets out.
:rolleyes:
Hmm.....
"The pot calling the kettle black" :lol: :popcorn:
Quote from: elmerfudd on June 02, 2012, 08:43:22 AM
I know a lot of people who never let facts get in the way of their preconceived notions. They have minds like a steel trap. Nothing ever gets in and nothing ever gets out.
I only know one.
Quote from: tbone0106 on June 03, 2012, 10:03:44 PM
I only know one.
:laugh:
It's atypical of liberals to feed on each others lies till it becomes a truth, which is why I said "of like minds".
Absent slavery and the system built around it, what was the difference between the North and the South? There was none. And absent the honored place of slavery, and some difference in office terms, what was the difference between the Constitution of the Union and the Confederate Constitution? Again the answer is none. In reality the planter aristocracy of the South, got the South involved in a rebellion, the only purpose of which was to save the value of their property.
One other thong. I hear neo Confederates always talking about how the Civil War was a battle for States Rights. In reality the South had dominated the machinert of the Federal Government since the founding of the country. Until Lincoln Ten of 16 Presidents had been Southerners. The 3/5 Compromise kept the South from using the persons of non voting slaves to increase their representation. The South destroyed the Missouri Compromise, because half the country wasn't enough for them. They had used the Federal government to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act , which basically meant that the laws of Slave States carried greater weight than the laws of Free States - in Free States. Taney's Dred Scott decision tried to deprive free blacks in the North of rights many had held since before the Revolution. In short the South had rode rough shod over the rest of the Union, and when it looked like the North had gotten the upper hand tried, to destroy the Union. The strange thing is, had the South done the legal thing and left the Union via the Amendment process and compromise, the North probably would have let them go. But the were simply too arrogant, too sure of their "nobility", and held the freemen of the North in too much contempt to be bothered.
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 14, 2012, 02:56:46 PM
Causes of the The War Between the States - A Southern Perspective
Nitpick: the south started the war, and several times attempted to invade the North. "northern aggression" my ass.
Quote
For more than 40 years Southerners spoke of "disunion" over a variety of issues. By the time Abraham Lincoln was elected president a single issue, the rise of the abolitionists, became the focal point of Southerners.
And we all agree that the south's defense of slavery was wrong. Ergo, their entire motivation of secession is unjust.
QuoteTariffs Tariffs were permitted in the Constitution to allow the United States to generate revenue. The first act, the Tariff Act of 1789, did just that, fairly raising revenue through tariffs on imported goods. In the Tariff of 1816, however, the United States tariff structure changed from revenue producing to protectionist. These protectionist tariffs had been proposed by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton back in 1789 but the concept was pretty much ignored. Hamilton's original reason was promote the industrialization of the North. Tariffs levied in 1816 were aimed at lucrative Southern markets. Many Northern politicians were looking at wealthy plantation owners and wanting to share that wealth with their constituents and tariffs were the means by which to accomplish this goal. Protectionist fervor, fanned by pre-1816 success creating industrial growth through the Embargo Act was somewhat muted by shippers and merchants who opposed tariffs, but in 1820 and 1824 the United States once again was trying to increase tariffs. The Tariff of 1828 precipitated the first secessionist crisis, in South Carolina in 1832. The battle pitted Vice-President John C. Calhoun against President Andy Jackson, ending with the Nullification Crisis.
Tariffs were never a central motivation for the south's secession. None of the compromises leading up to the secession ever mentioned tariffs. Lincoln's 1st inaugural never even mentioned the issue. The confederate declarations of secession scarcely bring up the topic.
There is no evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, states' rights were clearly not
the central motivation for secession; firstly, the south was happy to enforce federal laws over northern states when they deemed it convenient (fugitive slave law). Secondly, the Confederate constitution forbids any state from ever abolishing slavery; so when slavery and states' rights collide, slavery won.
The Confederacy was a backwards, racist, aristocratic, hypocritical and misogynistic hate organization founded on a principle of servitude. Apologists are annoying.
You know, the question to me seems to be why should the majority of Southerners - many of who had been pushed to the edges of society by the planters monopoly of the best lands and political power, go out and fight and die just to make sure the planters property values didn't go down.
Quote from: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
You know, the question to me seems to be why should the majority of Southerners - many of who had been pushed to the edges of society by the planters monopoly of the best lands and political power, go out and fight and die just to make sure the planters property values didn't go down.
There was a story, somewhere, about Union soldiers who asked just this to a poor white southern soldier, who never owned slaves. His response, was because they (the yankees) were here, and he felt a duty to defend his homeland.
Of course, there's also the fact that poor non-slaveowners were still racist scumbags, who boosted their self esteem by noting that at least they were above slaves in the social ladder, and that they may one day own one. They also wouldn't like the competition of a free black labor force.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 11:57:43 AM
There was a story, somewhere, about Union soldiers who asked just this to a poor white southern soldier, who never owned slaves. His response, was because they (the yankees) were here, and he felt a duty to defend his homeland.
Of course, there's also the fact that poor non-slaveowners were still racist scumbags, who boosted their self esteem by noting that at least they were above slaves in the social ladder, and that they may one day own one. They also wouldn't like the competition of a free black labor force.
Were they so stupid that they didn't realize that once they raised the flag of revolt they were going to have to deal with the national government? And if they were so sure of their superiority to blacks, why would they have seen them as competition?
Quote from: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 12:08:51 PM
Were they so stupid that they didn't realize that once they raised the flag of revolt they were going to have to deal with the national government?
IIRC, many southerners believed that the North was a materialistic group of cowards who wouldn't be able to stomach a prolonged war.
I'd imagine that many folks in the Confederacy didn't really have a choice either way.
QuoteAnd if they were so sure of their superiority to blacks, why would they have seen them as competition?
For the same reason that I would see an ox as competition if my job were (for some reason) to drag carts, or if I were a cashier and my store was installing a computer to replace me.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:24:13 PM
IIRC, many southerners believed that the North was a materialistic group of cowards who wouldn't be able to stomach a prolonged war.
I'd imagine that many folks in the Confederacy didn't really have a choice either way.
Uh, did they miss Bleeding Kansas? They were still using whale oil. Most whalers were Northerners. Did they think that people who go out and hunt giant beasts from a rowboat, with a spear, lack courage?
QuoteFor the same reason that I would see an ox as competition if my job were (for some reason) to drag carts, or if I were a cashier and my store was installing a computer to replace me.
But the slaves didn't compete with whites. Whites did not work on plantation for wages. Not only that, but according to Southern Mythology, blacks were too stupid to even feed themselves, without the assistance of whites. Are you saying that Southern whites didn't really buy into their most cherished beliefs?
Quote from: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 05:27:06 PM
Uh, did they miss Bleeding Kansas? They were still using whale oil. Most whalers were Northerners. Did they think that people who go out and hunt giant beasts from a rowboat, with a spear, lack courage?
:toungsmile: I never said they weren't stupid. I suppose one of their assumptions was that the North, abolitionists included, was entirely materialistic, and would not fight an idealistic cause.
Quote
But the slaves didn't compete with whites. Whites did not work on plantation for wages. Not only that, but according to Southern Mythology, blacks were too stupid to even feed themselves, without the assistance of whites. Are you saying that Southern whites didn't really buy into their most cherished beliefs?
Whoever said racists could not be hypocrites? It's why I laugh at the neo-nazis who believe jews to be inferior life forms, yet simultaneously think that they could secretly gain control of every industry in the world.
Howell Cobb did brush across the idea:
"If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong"
Quote from: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
You know, the question to me seems to be why should the majority of Southerners - many of who had been pushed to the edges of society by the planters monopoly of the best lands and political power, go out and fight and die just to make sure the planters property values didn't go down.
That is a good question!
Quote from: Ford289HiPo on July 16, 2012, 09:29:58 PM
That is a good question!
And here's the answer: they didn't. They fought because their country, the one that just seceded, was being threatened with extinction by the country from which it seceded.
But all that obfuscating draws attention away from the CAUSE of secession, which was the perceived threat to slavery. No secession, no war. No slavery, no secession.
Link to full article:
http://www.clarionledger.com/viewart/20120817/NEWS/120817007/150th-Civil-War-anniversary-angst-filled-Mississippi (http://www.clarionledger.com/viewart/20120817/NEWS/120817007/150th-Civil-War-anniversary-angst-filled-Mississippi)
Relevant excerpt:
"Depending on what part of the country you're from ... people have been brought up different ways to understand why the Civil War was fought," Martin said. "When it comes down to it, you can boil it all down to slavery. That is the root cause of the Civil War."
Quote from: elmerfudd on August 17, 2012, 01:37:42 PM
"When it comes down to it, you can boil it all down to slavery. That is the root cause of the Civil War."
War is never just one root cause, slavery was only part of the "root cause".
And I am not even for the South.
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
Quote from: walkstall on August 17, 2012, 02:13:06 PM
War is never just one root cause, slavery was only part of the "root cause".
And I am not even for the South.
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
3, 4, and 5 are pure slavery issues. 1 and 2 are predominantly slavery issues.
I keep explaining, y'all keep ignoring.
The Civil War was fought for economic reasons. Period.
Slavery was an economic issue. Period.
From the very article you quote, Fudd: "On Dec. 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede. Mississippi moved next on Jan. 9, 1861, with a secession declaration stating, in part: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world." [emphasis mine]
If those dumb racist crackers in Mississippi knew it -- and said so loudly and publicly -- in 1861, why can't you get it through your head?
Quote from: tbone0106 on August 18, 2012, 08:05:15 PM
I keep explaining, y'all keep ignoring.
The Civil War was fought for economic reasons. Period.
Slavery was an economic issue. Period.
From the very article you quote, Fudd: "On Dec. 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede. Mississippi moved next on Jan. 9, 1861, with a secession declaration stating, in part: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world." [emphasis mine]
If those dumb racist crackers in Mississippi knew it -- and said so loudly and publicly -- in 1861, why can't you get it through your head?
Yep, power and money.
Who'd a thunk it?
Slavery was more than an economic issue, it was also a social issue. After all as many here have noted, the majority of Southerners not only didn't own slaves, but were involved in the slavery economy. However slavery did give every white Southerner at least one rung up the social ladder, no matter what their actual material circumstances.
Quote from: walkstall on August 17, 2012, 02:13:06 PM
War is never just one root cause, slavery was only part of the "root cause".
And I am not even for the South.
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
Yes, but all of these factors can inevitably be traced backed to the prevalence of slavery in the south.
Economic and social differences? Slavery. States vs federal rights? Ditto; the south had no problem using federal authority to force Northern states to enforce the fugitive slave act, and the confederate constitution banned any state from abolishing slavery. Clearly, states' rights was just a silly excuse to defend their god given liberty to suppress others' liberties.
I hate to tell any southern apologists around here, but the confederacy was founded by the slavemasters, of the slavemasters, for the slavemasters. Don't listen to me: read the confederate declarations of secession. I kid you not when I say that >99% of the dialogue specifically defends slavery and aggressively opposes black suffrage.
This isn't even the case when I'm trying to accuse politicans of being closet racists; I'm simply pointing out that the Confederacy was
openly racist. It's no conspiracy theory.