Started by taxed, February 10, 2012, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: Shooterman on February 11, 2012, 01:30:38 AMThe Confederacy may have fired the first shot at Sumter, but the Yankees started the war. Slavery, in spite of the antagonism of the abolitionists, did not become a major issue until two years later and the Emancipation Proclamation was designed to freeze any support that may have been forthcoming from the Europeans who were appalled at the bloodshed. Slavery, a terrible institution and practice, of course was a cause or reason, but not the main cause or reason. Tariffs, of which the Southern agrarians paid an unequal share of, both on exported crops and imported goods, was a huge part of the problem. Most of the money, even dating back to Hamilton and his cohorts, was used for improvements in the North, to the detriment of the South. It was also understood, by the South, they still had dominion over their own governments, i.e. states rights were still very much a part of the fabric of constitutional law, which, BTW, protected slavery. It was also understood when a Compact no longer served the needs of a party, that party had an obligation and duty to withdraw from said Compact.My second Great grandfather, out of Homer, Tx, ( now Huntington, Tx ) in Angelina County, fought with Hoods Brigade. His father before him fought with Andy Jackson at New Orleans, and his grandfather before him fought at King's Mountain during the Revolution. They were all Americans, fighting for their homes and kin. I defy anyone to prove neither was a patriot to his home and his family.
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 11, 2012, 11:16:22 AMSlavery wss the sine qua non of secession, and secession was the main cause of the civil war. Both sides were equally responsible, but absent the existence of slavery, there would have been no secession. Tariffs simply were not a big enough issue to cause secession. And one reason for the problem with tariffs was, ironically, the existence of slavery. Absent slavery, there quite likely would have been no big issue with respect to tariffs.
Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on February 11, 2012, 07:00:34 PMYou are sooo full of shit.It started due to States Rights and self determination without a centralized government. The northern aggressors wanted to control everything in your life. Slavery was an issue that got rolled into the Agressors' first major victory.IF slavery was the major point of the War between the States then it should have been brought to the forefront of every discussion and speech. It was not.
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 11, 2012, 11:22:12 PMWell, genius, read the secession speeches made at the time. For example, the one made in Mississipi says, regarding secession, that slavery was the ONLY cause of secession. Preseving slavery was not the major focus of the war. Restoring the union was. But what divided the union? Read the speeches, genius, and then get back to me.
Quote from: Shooterman on February 12, 2012, 01:00:38 AMPresuming the secession statements of the various states were more than just political expediency, ( as was the DOI ) so what? The Constitution speaks not to secession, but did protect slavery in the union. A state, once it has determined the union does not serve it's needs any longer, can and should secede. Reasons given matters little. Secession is either legal or not. If legal, then the reason can be anything.
Quote from: Holly on February 10, 2012, 12:41:33 PMIt depends on who you ask.The battle at Fort Sumter, South Carolina was the beginning of the Civil war.The soldiers in the Confederate Union fired the first shots by trying to defend the Fort from the federal government. It was the Union States vs. the Confederate states from that day forth. Wonder if it will ever happen again?
Quote from: elmerfudd on February 12, 2012, 03:33:35 AMBut the topic is who started the war, and that always becomes a question of what caused it. Secession caused it. The perceived threat to slavery caused secession. Ergo, slavery is the root cause of the war. Well, I guess the root cause is the failure of both sides to deal with it in a more rational matter. But it still boils down to slavery. I agree that under the Constitution secession probably was constitutional. But that really din't matter once the war began. As Roger Taney said (I read this somewhere, I don't have a link), "The issue is now being settled on the field of battle." But I believe he believed it was constitutional. So do I. I am glad it didn't work, though.
Quote from: mdgiles on June 24, 2012, 01:14:11 PMOh Bull, I've said it before ,but I'll say it once more; the South dominated the Union up to Lincoln's election. Most of the Presidents had been Southerners and the entire Union bent over backwards to please the South. the 3/5 Compromise meant that a Southern White's vote was worth more than a Northern white's. And I am sick and tired of hearing the region that pushed the Fugitive Slave Act, talk about their defense of States Rights. The Fugitive Slave Act made the Slave Law of Mississippi superior to the Free Law of Massachusetts - IN MASSACHUSETTS So you can put that States Rights Defense where the sun don't shine. Whenever States Rights or Tariffs appears in the argument, that's a sign that the person making the argument doesn't want to face up to reality. as it had been since the founding of the country, it was all about slavery.
Quote from: elmerfudd on June 25, 2012, 07:08:25 AMwhat he said.