About that confederate flag (2 Viewers)

[NWRatCon]

The "seeds" of the Civil War were sown in 1793, by one man, who indirectly created the conditions in both the North and South: Eli Whitney. When the Constitution was ratified, slavery had a sunset clause. 1808. Not that it would be abolished, but because it was a dying institution, and the agreement was that importing slaves would be outlawed, and was immediately. Not that the practice stopped, smuggling was rampant, but it metastasized. Interstate transport and sale was not prohibited, only importation.

"At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates fiercely debated the issue of slavery. They ultimately agreed that the United States would potentially cease importation of slaves in 1808. An act of Congress passed in 1800 made it illegal for Americans to engage in the slave trade between nations, and gave U.S. authorities the right to seize slave ships which were caught transporting slaves and confiscate their cargo. Then the "Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves" took effect in 1808. However, a domestic or "coastwise" trade in slaves persisted between ports within the United States, as demonstrated by slave manifests and court records."

The Slave Trade

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates fiercely debated the issue of slavery. They ultimately agreed that the United States would potentially cease importation of slaves in 1808. An act of Congress passed in 1800 made it illegal for Americans to engage in the slave trade between...

www.archives.gov

"Inventor, mechanical engineer and manufacturing pioneer, Eli Whitney is best known as the inventor of the cotton gin, patented in 1794. An unforeseen byproduct of Whitney's invention, a labor-saving device, was to help preserve the institution of slavery in the South by making cotton production highly profitable. Exports of cotton from the U.S. skyrocketed exponentially after the introduction of the cotton gin. Between 1820 and 1860, cotton represented over half the value of U.S. exports.

Prior to the invention of the cotton gin, slavery was in decline. The profitably of crops grown with slave labor, such as rice, tobacco, indigo and cotton was steadily decreasing. Some slaveholders began freeing their slaves in response. By effortlessly separating the seeds from the cotton fibers, the cotton gin removed the main obstacle to producing cleaned cotton. As the price of cotton decreased, the demand for cotton soared; so too did the demand for more land and more slaves to grow and pick the cotton. The number of slave states increased from six in 1790 to 15 in 1860. By 1860, one in three Southerners was a slave. The labor-saving device Whitney created effectively rejuvenated the institution of slavery in the South, split American society and thus was a significant factor leading to disunion and the Civil War.

Whitney struggled unsuccessfully to make money from his invention; a lack of capital and the ease with which the cotton gin could be pirated conspired against him. Patent infringement litigation drained his dwindling resources even further. Knowing nothing about the manufacture of small arms, Whitney signed a contract with the Federal government in 1798 to deliver 10,000 guns in just over two years. He delivered the last guns to the government in January 1809, almost nine years late. In the process, Whitney experimented manufacturing his guns with uniform and interchangeable parts, which themselves were created by special-purpose machines. Although he did not originate the idea of mass manufacture of products, Whitney contributions to the development of American technology helped transform the North into the industrial powerhouse it would later become."

Eli Whitney (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

Sometimes facts are important.

 

[Ouroboros]

No it wasn't. The South didn't secede because of taxes.

It is from the conflict that they were talking about at the time? Why do you think the Missouri Compromise got overturned? Anyone can look at a map and see that the parts of the West going towards California that are good farm land and which are not. Now draw where the Mason Dixon Line is... It is easy to see now... it was easy to see then.

The Fugitive Slave Act was a wedge issue used by Abolitionists to get people on their side. Still.. even in 1860 abolitionists were seen as dangerous cranks. John Brown wasn't immediately a hero. He was seen as a terrorist

The fun thing about arguing counter history is that one can say any old thing.

The tax that was in effect was the Tariff of 1857 which was a LOWERING OF TAXES.

To say that the South seceded because three years earlier the taxes were lowered is just plain stupid.

The Civil War didn't happen because of taxes.

(1) Even some of the declarations for secession mentioned taxes. But when that evidence goes against the winners' narrative, the winners want to ignore said evidence. (2) Concerns over land allocation didn't motivate the overturning of the Compromise. It was concern over representation in Congress. (3) The North's dominantly negative response to abolitionists, while not as extreme as that of the South, supports the view that most Northerners had no desire to see Black ex-slaves join them at the table. (4) It's called a thought experiment, and it's based in actual history. You should try experimenting some time. (5) What cereal boxes do you guys get your "facts" from? The Panic of 1857 was blamed on the 1857 tariff and that newly formed Republicans took over the dissolving Whig Party's endorsement of high tariffs. The 1861 Morrill Tariff, that was signed into law under Buchanan and further implemented by Lincoln, didn't spring into being in 1861; its adherents were stumping for it from 1857 to 1859. Southerners were important in blocking the measure for a while but with the opening of new states, it became clear that the balance of power had shifted, and that the Republicans were going to get everything they wanted when Lincoln came in. Hence, the choice to separate from that regime.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not even the South believed in the “right to secede” as their attack on West Virginia shows.

The Confederacy was explicitly built around buying and selling other human beings, and no amount of flailing can ever change that.

The South losing control of the Federal Government and deciding to commit treason as a result speaks volumes, yes.

The Slaver South tried to spread slavery westwards by armed force, and when that failed they tried to derail it altogether.

The signers of the Constitution had the opportunity to officially protect slavery and chose not to. Meanwhile, the South actively attempted to enforce slavery in states where it was banned.

The modern South still whining over being condemned for their fight to save slavery speaks volumes.

The South explicitly went to war to protect slavery. Cries about “tariffs” are meaningless drivel.

The ass kicking the South received didn’t stop them from continuing to systematically violate the Constitution for the next century.

Yawn. I don't bother reading your cereal-box quotations of fake history any more. Go back to claiming that the founders of Israel were Nazi sympathizers, why don't you? That howler won you the unofficial reward for the Dumbest Post of 2024.

 

[Jezcoe]

1) Even some of the declarations for secession mentioned taxes. But when that evidence goes against the winners' narrative, the winners want to ignore said evidence.

Where? I mean one can squint and tilt their head make Kentucky's complaint about taxes... but they were also complaining about mobs and fanatics ravaging their State.... which was a thing that wasn't really happening.

(2) Concerns over land allocation didn't motivate the overturning of the Compromise. It was concern over representation in Congress

What overturned the Missouri Compromise was that the Southern oligarchy had a good hold of political power in this country. They basically got everything that they wanted in the Compromise of 1850 and they got it because they wanted to expand slavery to the West. And it wasn't about "representation"... they wanted the land for plantations because they needed new markets to ship slaves to.

3) The North's dominantly negative response to abolitionists, while not as extreme as that of the South, supports the view that most Northerners had no desire to see Black ex-slaves join them at the table.

I actually agree with that. The North wasn't a paradise for free people of color. And here we go again... we can have a good conversation about the nationwide State Sponsered suppression of black people for centuries in this country and the effects that we still see from that. I understand why that is skirted and is only used to say that the North was just as bad as the South. That is the only real utility for pointing that out for some.

(4) It's called a thought experiment, and it's based in actual history. You should try experimenting some time

Counterfactuals have no use when talking facts.

(5) What cereal boxes do you guys get your "facts" from? The Panic of 1857 was blamed on the 1857 tariff and that newly formed Republicans took over the dissolving Whig Party's endorsement of high tariffs. The 1861 Morrill Tariff, that was signed into law under Buchanan and further implemented by Lincoln, didn't spring into being in 1861; its adherents were stumping for it from 1857 to 1859. Southerners were important in blocking the measure for a while but with the opening of new states, it became clear that the balance of power had shifted, and that the Republicans were going to get everything they wanted when Lincoln came in. Hence, the choice to separate from that regime.

The tariff of 1857 was a lowering of taxes.

The Morrell Tariff was only passed AFTER States started seceding. So yeah... the balance of power shifted because States left.

One can't say that the Seven States that left December 1860 and Jan 1861 seceded because of a tax past in March 1861.

Then four States left in May after Sumpter and Lincoln calling up troops to put down the rebellion and the final two left in October (Missouri after actual fighting between pro-secessionst and Pro-Unionist militias) and November in Kentucky when Secessionists formed their own rump government after losing bad in the August Election leaving Kentucky with Two Capitols and Governments fighting each other.

The Civil War was not about Taxes.

 

[Tigerace117]

Yawn. I don't bother reading your cereal-box quotations of fake history any more. Go back to claiming that the founders of Israel were Nazi sympathizers, why don't you? That howler won you the unofficial reward for the Dumbest Post of 2024.

Lost Causers whining because they can’t face actual facts instead of whitewashed lies is a surprise to no one.

Hmm. Perhaps the Lehi shouldn’t have actively tried to ally with Nazi Germany if they didn’t want to be called out for doing so.

Aww, as long as posters like you are around vomiting up drivel I’d never come close to that title

 

[NWRatCon]

It's interesting (to me) that the dynamics that led to the Civil War are being replayed today. During the slave period the South was directly supported by slave labor. They produced the products that the US exported. The North benefited indirectly, which created a moral distance for their participation. They built the ships needed for the export of goods, and the transport of slaves, and the Importation of the goods they needed and wanted. There was a tension between the moral horror of the institution and the commercial dependence on it. Conflicting laws of the period reflect that tension.

Today, that same dynamic is playing out with immigration. Much of the production economy depends on that labor, but there are segments of the population that are agitating against immigration, often centered on the same racist foundation. The conflicting laws of our era also reflect that tension.

It is thus not surprising that the same symbols of the past are being adopted to assist that agitation. Also similarly, there are those that seek that moral distance from their participation in that dynamic by asserting, disingenuously, that those symbols are not what they are.

 

[Jezcoe]

It's interesting (to me) that the dynamics that led to the Civil War are being replayed today. During the slave period the South was directly supported by slave labor. They produced the products that the US exported. The North benefited indirectly, which created a moral distance for their participation. They built the ships needed for the export of goods, and the transport of slaves, and the Importation of the goods they needed and wanted. There was a tension between the moral horror of the institution and the commercial dependence on it. Conflicting laws of the period reflect that tension.

Today, that same dynamic is playing out with immigration. Much of the production economy depends on that labor, but there are segments of the population that are agitating against immigration, often centered on the same racist foundation. The conflicting laws of our era also reflect that tension.

It is thus not surprising that the same symbols of the past are being adopted to assist that agitation. Also similarly, there are those that seek that moral distance from their participation in that dynamic by asserting, disingenuously, that those symbols are not what they are.

I don’t see the immigration issue today as existential as the slavery issue in the 1800’s.

I see today’s divisions as all self inflicted wounds that are reflections of the failed policies of Neoliberalism and late stage capitalism.

We are the wealthiest most powerful nation to ever exist and the fact that there are pockets of hollowed out communities living in poverty is a testament to the failure of our national polices.

It doesn’t have to be like this.

 

[NWRatCon]

I don’t see the immigration issue today as existential as the slavery issue in the 1800’s.

I'm not so sure about that, seeing the issues ariising in Russia, Ukraine and Japan, but don't have data to effectively disagree.

I see today’s divisions as all self inflicted wounds that are reflections of the failed policies of Neoliberalism and late stage capitalism.

I don't disagree with that assessment.

We are the wealthiest most powerful nation to ever exist and the fact that there are pockets of hollowed out communities living in poverty is a testament to the failure of our national polices.

It doesn’t have to be like this.

Completely agree. Immigrants are collateral damage to larger economic issues. People are being directed to the wrong targets, and that effort is both cynical and deliberately destructive.

 

[Ouroboros]

Where? I mean one can squint and tilt their head make Kentucky's complaint about taxes... but they were also complaining about mobs and fanatics ravaging their State.... which was a thing that wasn't really happening.

What overturned the Missouri Compromise was that the Southern oligarchy had a good hold of political power in this country. They basically got everything that they wanted in the Compromise of 1850 and they got it because they wanted to expand slavery to the West. And it wasn't about "representation"... they wanted the land for plantations because they needed new markets to ship slaves to.

I actually agree with that. The North wasn't a paradise for free people of color. And here we go again... we can have a good conversation about the nationwide State Sponsered suppression of black people for centuries in this country and the effects that we still see from that. I understand why that is skirted and is only used to say that the North was just as bad as the South. That is the only real utility for pointing that out for some.

Counterfactuals have no use when talking facts.

The tariff of 1857 was a lowering of taxes.

The Morrell Tariff was only passed AFTER States started seceding. So yeah... the balance of power shifted because States left.

One can't say that the Seven States that left December 1860 and Jan 1861 seceded because of a tax past in March 1861.

Then four States left in May after Sumpter and Lincoln calling up troops to put down the rebellion and the final two left in October (Missouri after actual fighting between pro-secessionst and Pro-Unionist militias) and November in Kentucky when Secessionists formed their own rump government after losing bad in the August Election leaving Kentucky with Two Capitols and Governments fighting each other.

The Civil War was not about Taxes.

(1) Are you claiming you actually read everything in the citation, or are you just sealioning? (2) I tend to think the latter because you conveniently zoomed past my clear statement that the Republicans were seeking to get the higher tariffs instituted as early as 1857, in reaction to the 1857 Panic. That clearly connoted to Southerners that if Republicans got into power, they were going to revoke the lowered tariffs, and indeed Candidate Lincoln made quite clear that he was pro-tariff all the way. I don't know why so many posters on this forum can't comprehend the 2+2 logic here. The first "2" is "Lincoln's party is going to raise the tariffs if they get enough votes against us," and the second 2 is "They're trying to make sure all the states that will be admitted will be Free States that will vote with established Free States." The Southerners knew that the Northerners were gaming the system to their advantage and the only solution seemed to leave the Union. How do you get anything but "4" out of those two elements? (3) Yawn. The South wanted slave states for the same reason that the North wanted free states; to increase their power of their respective voting blocs in Congress. You can call the slaveholders oligarchs and I can correctly say the same of Northern industrialists, but it doesn't change the fact that they were both working through a representative system, and the Southern states had as much legal right to take actions to support their power as did the Northern. But there was little likelihood of the South being able to spread the plantation structure to many, if any, Western states, and so one way or the other they were going to have their Congressional power nullified. You champion the idea of the Southern states just knuckling under without rebellion, but you have no legal argument as long as there's no express commandment against secession in the Constitution or in the Amendments. None of this is what you and others fatuously call "the Lost Cause narrative," which focuses on slavery as a positive good and idealizes slavery itself. The only extremely loose similarity is that some Lost Causers cite "states' rights" as a blanket reason for the war. As long as the Southern states remained in the Union, they had no right not to be outvoted by a superior number of Free States. That's textbook majority rule, which Lost Causers did not want to accept. But if the signatories of the Constitution didn't sign a document binding all their descendants to the Union eternally, then the states absolutely had the right to secede.

 

[Ouroboros]

Lost Causers whining because they can’t face actual facts instead of whitewashed lies is a surprise to no one.

Hmm. Perhaps the Lehi shouldn’t have actively tried to ally with Nazi Germany if they didn’t want to be called out for doing so.

Aww, as long as posters like you are around vomiting up drivel I’d never come close to that title

Triple Yawn. You won't repeat your win of the Dumbest Post for 2025 unless you come up with something really special, not just the usual cereal box natterings.

 

[Tigerace117]

Triple Yawn. You won't repeat your win of the Dumbest Post for 2025 unless you come up with something really special, not just the usual cereal box natterings.

As already established, I could never win such an award so long as your Lost Cause drivel continues to be vomited up.

After all, nothing can be dumber than the whining of those who desperately flail in hopes of avoiding the fact the crushing of the Slaver South was a great thing for the world.

 

[Jezcoe]

1) Are you claiming you actually read everything in the citation, or are you just sealioning?

I have read them... have you?

(2) I tend to think the latter because you conveniently zoomed past my clear statement that the Republicans were seeking to get the higher tariffs instituted as early as 1857, in reaction to the 1857 Panic. That clearly connoted to Southerners that if Republicans got into power, they were going to revoke the lowered tariffs, and indeed Candidate Lincoln made quite clear that he was pro-tariff all the way.

The Senate was controlled by the South in the elections of 1858 and 1860. The Republicans didn't gain control of the Senate until States started to secede. So to argue that the Civil War was about taxes would mean that the South itself created the very opportunity for the Morell tariff to come into being.

I don't know why so many posters on this forum can't comprehend the 2+2 logic here. The first "2" is "Lincoln's party is going to raise the tariffs if they get enough votes against us," and the second 2 is "They're trying to make sure all the states that will be admitted will be Free States that will vote with established Free States." The Southerners knew that the Northerners were gaming the system to their advantage and the only solution seemed to leave the Union. How do you get anything but "4" out of those two elements

Just because a new State would be entered into the Union as a free State it does not mean that they would automatically side with higher tariffs. The Western States relied on agrarian economies just like the South but the difference is that the labor involved was not slavery and the plantation system that needed slavery to be economically viable would not be in play. As we see how post Civil War politics do play out in the West... the agrarian West has little in common with the Industrial Northeast and that coalition falls apart pretty quick.

(3) Yawn. The South wanted slave states for the same reason that the North wanted free states; to increase their power of their respective voting blocs in Congress.

The South needed a place to diffuse the growing slave population so they wouldn't rise up and murder them. Being surrounded by people in bondage made them seriously paranoid. It wasn't all about Congress... because abolition wasn't really on the table,,, only containment... it was also about preserving their power, money and status.

You can call the slaveholders oligarchs

They were.

I can correctly say the same of Northern industrialists

Name them.

But there was little likelihood of the South being able to spread the plantation structure to many, if any, Western states, and so one way or the other they were going to have their Congressional power nullified.

Why do you think there was little liklihood? Cotton was a cash crop that made people rich. Why wouldn't it expand wherever it could? Especially with land depletion in the east.

You champion the idea of the Southern states just knuckling under without rebellion

They rebelled to preserve chattel slavery. Not a great cause. I have no problem saying that they were in the wrong.

but you have no legal argument as long as there's no express commandment against secession in the Constitution or in the Amendments. None of this is what you and others fatuously call "the Lost Cause narrative," which focuses on slavery as a positive good and idealizes slavery itself. The only extremely loose similarity is that some Lost Causers cite "states' rights" as a blanket reason for the war. As long as the Southern states remained in the Union, they had no right not to be outvoted by a superior number of Free States. That's textbook majority rule, which Lost Causers did not want to accept. But if the signatories of the Constitution didn't sign a document binding all their descendants to the Union eternally, then the states absolutely had the right to secede.

The "Lost Cause" is a post Civil War creation that makes the reason for secession to be anything but slavery... like taxes and "States Rights"

That is what the Lost Cause is. It is distraction from the fact that they seceded to preserve chattel slavery.

 

[NWRatCon]

The South needed a place to diffuse the growing slave population so they wouldn't rise up and murder them. Being surrounded by people in bondage made them seriously paranoid. It wasn't all about Congress... because abolition wasn't really on the table,,, only containment... it was also about preserving their power, money and status.
....
Why do you think there was little liklihood? Cotton was a cash crop that made people rich. Why wouldn't it expand wherever it could? Especially with land depletion in the east.

I can speak with a little authority on that subject, as some of my ancestors were involved in exactly that. There is a good deal of misdirection involved in saying that many of the soldiers involved in the Civil War "didn't own slaves". That doesn't mean they weren't actively involved in the use of slaves. Some background:

After the Importation of Slaves was outlawed in 1808, a homegrown market was created in "domestic production" of slaves. The laws were manipulated to ensure that offspring of slaves were born into slavery, a relatively unique condition in American chattel slavery. Some of my ancestors got into the business of breeding slaves. It is exactly as ugly as it sounds. This was common in the Southern States, far more common than most people realize.

Their business was mostly in Alabama and Mississippi. In addition to breeding slaves, they "rented them out" for labor on other people's farms and plantations (there is a difference). Not all slaves performed menial labor. There was a particular slave that they owned who was educated enough to be an architect. In addition to designing and supervising the building of the master's dwellings, he was hired out to build neighbors' mansions, and numerous public buildings. Much of Yazoo, Mississippi was designed and built by their slaves.

To expand the family enterprise, two sons and their father (my direct forebear, who fought in the War of 1812) moved to Texas to create new plantations and expand the family slave business. There was an active slave market in Galveston, which is where Juneteenth came into existence. One of my relatives was present at the reading of the emancipation proclamation there.

Some of the slaves that were freed that day were still alive in the 1930s and told their stories to chroniclers from the WPA. A cousin of mine (yeah, there is that, too. Thomas Jefferson was far from the only owner to have impregnated their slaves), was one of them. Imagine for a moment being willing to sell your own offspring for a profit. Then tell me it was a humane institution.

Tate, Frederick

The Handbook of Texas is your number one authoritative source for Texas history. Read this entry and thousands more like it on our site.

www.tshaonline.org

The WPA and the Slave Narrative Collection | An Introduction to the WPA Slave Narratives | Articles and Essays | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

The WPA and Americans' Life Histories Private efforts to preserve the life histories of former slaves accounted for only a small portion of the narratives collected during the late 1920s and 1930s. The advent of the New Deal marked a new phase, for it was under New Deal employment programs for...

www.loc.gov

 

[Ouroboros]

I have read them... have you?

The Senate was controlled by the South in the elections of 1858 and 1860. The Republicans didn't gain control of the Senate until States started to secede. So to argue that the Civil War was about taxes would mean that the South itself created the very opportunity for the Morell tariff to come into being.


Just because a new State would be entered into the Union as a free State it does not mean that they would automatically side with higher tariffs. The Western States relied on agrarian economies just like the South but the difference is that the labor involved was not slavery and the plantation system that needed slavery to be economically viable would not be in play. As we see how post Civil War politics do play out in the West... the agrarian West has little in common with the Industrial Northeast and that coalition falls apart pretty quick.


The South needed a place to diffuse the growing slave population so they wouldn't rise up and murder them. Being surrounded by people in bondage made them seriously paranoid. It wasn't all about Congress... because abolition wasn't really on the table,,, only containment... it was also about preserving their power, money and status.

They were.


Name them.


Why do you think there was little liklihood? Cotton was a cash crop that made people rich. Why wouldn't it expand wherever it could? Especially with land depletion in the east.

They rebelled to preserve chattel slavery. Not a great cause. I have no problem saying that they were in the wrong.


The "Lost Cause" is a post Civil War creation that makes the reason for secession to be anything but slavery... like taxes and "States Rights"

That is what the Lost Cause is. It is distraction from the fact that they seceded to preserve chattel slavery.

(1) Since you claim to have read them, you clearly overlooked anything that didn't match your narrative. (2) The control of Congress by the North was going to happen once the New Republicans managed to bring in a surfeit of Free States. You repeat the usual tedious narrative that the South created the economic threat by seceding, when in fact the Republicans were going to get the hegemony no matter what. (3) What Free State coalition do you imagine "fell apart?" As the new Western states came into statehood, all their oppositions to high tariffs were repeatedly overruled by high-tariff Republicans, who had acquired the hegemony that you despise when the South sat in the catbird seat. The few tariff reductions between 1865 and 1913 were continually reversed in the same way the Morrill Tariff reversed the 1857 reduction. Had the South never seceded, the Western and Southern states STILL would have been continually dominated by the Northeast and the Midwest just as they were after the Civil War. The Republicans even kept stumping for high tariffs even after the institution of the income tax, which became the dominant method by which the government paid its bills. Once Lincoln established the rule of the Union by force, what Western states were going to politically bond with the defeated Southern states? After the war the distinction between Free and Slave vanished, but big business interests wanted protectionism and they got it. (4) The economic struggle was always about Congressional control. You yourself admitted that the South kept that control for years, but somehow you can't imagine that Lincoln's party managed to gain the same sort of control after the war. (5) You have names of your "oligarchs?" Bet not. But guys like Lincoln and Seward were totally about ceding all control to big business. (6) Cotton needs specific conditions to grow profitably, and not many of the Western states could grow cotton profitably. It's also not a crop that small farmers could make quick profit on, which was what Republicans had in mind when they stumped for small farms in the Western states. (7) I have explained to you the distinctions between my historical take on things and that of all the Lost Cause works that you've read while I have not. Since you choose to ignore those distinctions, just as you ignore distinctions as to what the Battle Flag means to different people, I will accept your inability to debate and simply repeat that all your Lost Cause accusations are just the usual lame, empty rhetoric.

 

[Jezcoe]

(1) Since you claim to have read them, you clearly overlooked anything that didn't match your narrative

Point out where they said that they seceded because of taxes.

(2) The control of Congress by the North was going to happen once the New Republicans managed to bring in a surfeit of Free States. You repeat the usual tedious narrative that the South created the economic threat by seceding, when in fact the Republicans were going to get the hegemony no matter what.

Economic threat? It was a real threat in that they raised militias, seized federal property and fired upon Sumpter. Most people would see those as acts of aggression.

(3) What Free State coalition do you imagine "fell apart?" As the new Western states came into statehood, all their oppositions to high tariffs were repeatedly overruled by high-tariff Republicans, who had acquired the hegemony that you despise when the South sat in the catbird seat. The few tariff reductions between 1865 and 1913 were continually reversed in the same way the Morrill Tariff reversed the 1857 reduction. Had the South never seceded, the Western and Southern states STILL would have been continually dominated by the Northeast and the Midwest just as they were after the Civil War. The Republicans even kept stumping for high tariffs even after the institution of the income tax, which became the dominant method by which the government paid its bills. Once Lincoln established the rule of the Union by force, what Western states were going to politically bond with the defeated Southern states? After the war the distinction between Free and Slave vanished, but big business interests wanted protectionism and they got it.

The coalition fell apart in Reconstruction. By the 1880's the interests of the Northeast and the West didn't really line up. It is telling though that one assumes that the interests of free labor will always line up like Slave labor oligarchies will. It's like slave labor is really important to preserve for the owners of slaves.

(4) The economic struggle was always about Congressional control. You yourself admitted that the South kept that control for years, but somehow you can't imagine that Lincoln's party managed to gain the same sort of control after the war.

They had control for a brief period of Reconstruction but it fell apart.

(5) You have names of your "oligarchs?" Bet not. But guys like Lincoln and Seward were totally about ceding all control to big business.

John C Calhoun... big old timey racist oligarch asshole. Got plenty more. And LOL that Lincoln was an oligarch.

6) Cotton needs specific conditions to grow profitably, and not many of the Western states could grow cotton profitably. It's also not a crop that small farmers could make quick profit on, which was what Republicans had in mind when they stumped for small farms in the Western states.

What did Republicans have in mind again?

 

[Ouroboros]

I can speak with a little authority on that subject, as some of my ancestors were involved in exactly that. There is a good deal of misdirection involved in saying that many of the soldiers involved in the Civil War "didn't own slaves". That doesn't mean they weren't actively involved in the use of slaves. Some background:

After the Importation of Slaves was outlawed in 1808, a homegrown market was created in "domestic production" of slaves. The laws were manipulated to ensure that offspring of slaves were born into slavery, a relatively unique condition in American chattel slavery. Some of my ancestors got into the business of breeding slaves. It is exactly as ugly as it sounds. This was common in the Southern States, far more common than most people realize.

Their business was mostly in Alabama and Mississippi. In addition to breeding slaves, they "rented them out" for labor on other people's farms and plantations (there is a difference). Not all slaves performed menial labor. There was a particular slave that they owned who was educated enough to be an architect. In addition to designing and supervising the building of the master's dwellings, he was hired out to build neighbors' mansions, and numerous public buildings. Much of Yazoo, Mississippi was designed and built by their slaves.

To expand the family enterprise, two sons and their father (my direct forebear, who fought in the War of 1812) moved to Texas to create new plantations and expand the family slave business. There was an active slave market in Galveston, which is where Juneteenth came into existence. One of my relatives was present at the reading of the emancipation proclamation there.

Some of the slaves that were freed that day were still alive in the 1930s and told their stories to chroniclers from the WPA. A cousin of mine (yeah, there is that, too. Thomas Jefferson was far from the only owner to have impregnated their slaves), was one of them. Imagine for a moment being willing to sell your own offspring for a profit. Then tell me it was a humane institution.

Tate, Frederick

The Handbook of Texas is your number one authoritative source for Texas history. Read this entry and thousands more like it on our site.

www.tshaonline.org

The WPA and the Slave Narrative Collection | An Introduction to the WPA Slave Narratives | Articles and Essays | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

The WPA and Americans' Life Histories Private efforts to preserve the life histories of former slaves accounted for only a small portion of the narratives collected during the late 1920s and 1930s. The advent of the New Deal marked a new phase, for it was under New Deal employment programs for...

www.loc.gov

I don't recall anyone on this thread claiming that slavery was a humane institution. The gist of the argument that arose in opposition to the OP is that the Confederate Battle Flag does not connote only the validation of slavery, ably voiced by Corbell on the thread's first page. Slavery was, in every country where it existed, an institution like many other institutions, devoted to humans dicking with other humans for some perceived advantage. But one point we've not covered enough is the nature of those perceived advantages. We know that though there was opposition to the legalization of slavery by some parties at the Continental Congress, the Union that resulted allowed for slavery in all states, with just one state choosing to ban the practice in that period of time. The different advantages was the South wanted Black slaves for utility-- people with melanin-heavy skin can work in the hot sun for longer hours, though not without consequence-- while the Northern states apparently wanted Black slaves for the sake of prestige. When European sympathies turned against slavery, the prestige motivation lessened, if it didn't quite disappear, and so we got the "phasing out" attempts in most Northern states. But this raises the question-- if for some reason slavery had been regularly PROFITABLE for the North, would they have phased it out?

 

[Jezcoe]

I don't recall anyone on this thread claiming that slavery was a humane institution. The gist of the argument that arose in opposition to the OP is that the Confederate Battle Flag does not connote only the validation of slavery, ably voiced by Corbell on the thread's first page. Slavery was, in every country where it existed, an institution like many other institutions, devoted to humans dicking with other humans for some perceived advantage. But one point we've not covered enough is the nature of those perceived advantages. We know that though there was opposition to the legalization of slavery by some parties at the Continental Congress, the Union that resulted allowed for slavery in all states, with just one state choosing to ban the practice in that period of time. The different advantages was the South wanted Black slaves for utility-- people with melanin-heavy skin can work in the hot sun for longer hours, though not without consequence-- while the Northern states apparently wanted Black slaves for the sake of prestige. When European sympathies turned against slavery, the prestige motivation lessened, if it didn't quite disappear, and so we got the "phasing out" attempts in most Northern states. But this raises the question-- if for some reason slavery had been regularly PROFITABLE for the North, would they have phased it out?

Once again... there is the counter factual history at work.

There are plenty of examples of State sponsored suppression of free black people in the North... why not focus in on that. We could have a really interesting discussion about the centuries of State sponsored racial oppression and the lasting effects of that today. It would be interesting.

As far as the flag.

I do not see how a flag that was flown by an army that fought for the preservation of slavery cannot mean that it is a flag that is for the preservation of slavery.

People are free to fly it... no one is going to stop them. But a good majority of people see it as a flag of racists so those who choose to fly it shouldn't be surprised if people view them that way.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Mississippi and other states" is a cold hard lie. Some states produced secession documents that highlighted slavery. Some states merely addressed the fact of the secession while others mentioned quite a few other concerns besides slavery:

Secession Acts of the Thirteen Confederate States

SOUTH CAROLINA | MISSISSIPPI | FLORIDA | ALABAMA | GEORGIA | LOUISIANA | TEXAS | VIRGINIA | ARKANSAS | NORTH...

www.battlefields.org

I am obliged to link to my above post again to refute Jezcoe's standard attempts to erase distinctions. The context of my post to Cold Hard Truth appears in the quote above, where CHT incorrectly generalized that "Mississippi and other states" had all justified slavery as the motive for secession. With respect to Mississippi, what CHT was clearly referencing was what Mississippi termed "a declaration of immediate causes," which is distinct from the actual Ordinances of Secession, to which I linked. All thirteen Rebel states (discounting the territory Arizona) produced Ordinances of Secession, and only four states-- Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Georgia-- produced additional justifications like the one I believe CHT attributed to all of the states. Clearly most of the Ordinances merely state the bare fact of the secession declaration, without DIRECT justifications, whether of slavery or taxation. So in the original post that Jezcoe distorted, I was concerned with proving that not all "letters," as CHT called them, brought up slavery as the justification of secession. In post 1477 I stated correctly to Jezcoe that "some" of the declarations, by which I meant the Ordinances alone, mentioned the states' determination that the Federal Government had gone against those states' interests. Alabama speaks of "dangerous infractions of the Constitution," Texas mentions the government using its power to "strike down the interests and property of the State of Texas," and Virginia also says that the government "has perverted [its] powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding states." Texas also uses the phrase "slaveholding states," so that's twice that the "slave state' issue is mentioned. But what ALL the ordinances have in common is the assertion that they are repealing any compact their states previously made with the Union. Since the Republican government did not have any anti-slave policies on the books in 1860-- just a lot of informal attempts to use the slavery issue against the Southern hegemony-- then what "compact" is being repealed? Obviously, they are INDIRECTLY stating that they no longer have the responsibility to pay taxes and duties to the Federal government. Lincoln knew that's what they meant, which is why he insists that he will collect taxes and duties in his First Inaugural. So Lincoln understood what all of the Southern legislators meant, even though I predict that Jezcoe will purposely claim not to understand what all of these statements really meant in the INDIRECT sense. I fully expect Jezcoe to say something like, "If they didn't say taxation was the reason for seceding, it wasn't the reason." But the Ordinances don't universally say that slavery is the reason either, so by the same logic, slavery also wasn't the reason for secession. That's why it's not good enough to quote a few out of context documents to support the winners' narrative that all the Southerners were Evil Red Skulls doing evil things for the sake of Pure Evil.

 

[Jezcoe]

I am obliged to link to my above post again to refute Jezcoe's standard attempts to erase distinctions. The context of my post to Cold Hard Truth appears in the quote above, where CHT incorrectly generalized that "Mississippi and other states" had all justified slavery as the motive for secession. With respect to Mississippi, what CHT was clearly referencing was what Mississippi termed "a declaration of immediate causes," which is distinct from the actual Ordinances of Secession, to which I linked. All thirteen Rebel states (discounting the territory Arizona) produced Ordinances of Secession, and only four states-- Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Georgia-- produced additional justifications like the one I believe CHT attributed to all of the states. Clearly most of the Ordinances merely state the bare fact of the secession declaration, without DIRECT justifications, whether of slavery or taxation. So in the original post that Jezcoe distorted, I was concerned with proving that not all "letters," as CHT called them, brought up slavery as the justification of secession. In post 1477 I stated correctly to Jezcoe that "some" of the declarations, by which I meant the Ordinances alone, mentioned the states' determination that the Federal Government had gone against those states' interests. Alabama speaks of "dangerous infractions of the Constitution," Texas mentions the government using its power to "strike down the interests and property of the State of Texas," and Virginia also says that the government "has perverted [its] powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding states." Texas also uses the phrase "slaveholding states," so that's twice that the "slave state' issue is mentioned. But what ALL the ordinances have in common is the assertion that they are repealing any compact their states previously made with the Union. Since the Republican government did not have any anti-slave policies on the books in 1860-- just a lot of informal attempts to use the slavery issue against the Southern hegemony-- then what "compact" is being repealed? Obviously, they are INDIRECTLY stating that they no longer have the responsibility to pay taxes and duties to the Federal government. Lincoln knew that's what they meant, which is why he insists that he will collect taxes and duties in his First Inaugural. So Lincoln understood what all of the Southern legislators meant, even though I predict that Jezcoe will purposely claim not to understand what all of these statements really meant in the INDIRECT sense. I fully expect Jezcoe to say something like, "If they didn't say taxation was the reason for seceding, it wasn't the reason." But the Ordinances don't universally say that slavery is the reason either, so by the same logic, slavery also wasn't the reason for secession. That's why it's not good enough to quote a few out of context documents to support the winners' narrative that all the Southerners were Evil Red Skulls doing evil things for the sake of Pure Evil.

What was is about the election of Lincoln that precipitated South Carolina wanting to secede and got the ball rolling?

Also… the Confederacy was clearly on the wrong side of history on this one.

 

[hooligan]

If you fly the Confederate flag - these are your people, like it or not:

x.com

x.com

 

[NWRatCon]

What was is about the election of Lincoln that precipitated South Carolina wanting to secede and got the ball rolling?

Also… the Confederacy was clearly on the wrong side of history on this one.

As are the proponents of apologists for the modern use of the traitor's flag.

 

[Jezcoe]

As are the proponents of apologists for the modern use of the traitor's flag.

I get why there is a desire to frame the Southern States seceding as being about anything but about the preservation of chattel slavery. If it was about protesting taxes, rebellion against a central government or self determination of State vs Federal authority then the symbology of using using the Confederacy in the modern day makes complete sense.

But secession was about the preservation and expansion of chattel slavery and that cause is not just.... so to make using the symbols make sense then the cause for what they stood for has to be fabricated.

 

[Ouroboros]

Point out where they said that they seceded because of taxes.

Economic threat? It was a real threat in that they raised militias, seized federal property and fired upon Sumpter. Most people would see those as acts of aggression.

The coalition fell apart in Reconstruction. By the 1880's the interests of the Northeast and the West didn't really line up. It is telling though that one assumes that the interests of free labor will always line up like Slave labor oligarchies will. It's like slave labor is really important to preserve for the owners of slaves.

They had control for a brief period of Reconstruction but it fell apart.

John C Calhoun... big old timey racist oligarch asshole. Got plenty more. And LOL that Lincoln was an oligarch.

What did Republicans have in mind again?

(1) None of the actions the Southern states took to defend themselves from the Union would have been threats had the North respected the states' right to secede. The governor of South Carolina even allowed that the state might recompense the Union for Sumter since the former could not allow the latter to keep a military base on seceded territory. Lincoln had no interest in Sumter except as a possible means of collecting taxes, which he clearly stated to be his priority. he was going to get those taxes to fund the government, and he was totally OK with fomenting war to get them. I do wish SC hadn't fired on Sumter, though, because history would think differently of Lincoln once he started trying to force South Carolinans to pay the taxes. But he knew that if he could make it seem as though the Union had been attacked by aggressors, Yankee simps would act as if their offended honor called for blood. And the "economic threat" I was addressing was the Morrill Tariff, which you facilely tried to blame on the South. (2) Again, there was no real coalition between the Union and the many Western territories during the war, because those territories weren't states yet. There may have been contributions of resources and volunteers, though those were likely to have been motivated by the concern to keep all the jobs for White Labor and make sure the Blacks stayed out. (3) The North got its way most of the time with respect to the issue of protectionism, probably because business interests in the new Western states also favored protectionism. (4) Calhoun's no bigger an asshole than Lincoln or Seward. (5) The statement was clear; your pretending not to understand is fatuous.

 

[Ouroboros]

Once again... there is the counter factual history at work.

There are plenty of examples of State sponsored suppression of free black people in the North... why not focus in on that. We could have a really interesting discussion about the centuries of State sponsored racial oppression and the lasting effects of that today. It would be interesting.

As far as the flag.

I do not see how a flag that was flown by an army that fought for the preservation of slavery cannot mean that it is a flag that is for the preservation of slavery.

People are free to fly it... no one is going to stop them. But a good majority of people see it as a flag of racists so those who choose to fly it shouldn't be surprised if people view them that way.

(1) Too bad you have no facts to back up your own "counter factual history," except to bleat "The Civil War was not about taxes." (2) The significance of Northern suppression of Blacks is only relevant to this discussion as a means of dispelling the frequent counter-factual that Northerners dominantly sought to end slavery. (3) The Battle Flag can signify white supremacy to those who overtly use it for that purpose, and anyone else not using it for that express purpose should be given the benefit of the doubt for the reasons Corbell and I cited many times. But you'd rather everyone accepted the winners' narrative without a second thought.

 

[Ouroboros]

What was is about the election of Lincoln that precipitated South Carolina wanting to secede and got the ball rolling?

Also… the Confederacy was clearly on the wrong side of history on this one.

Lincoln had a long record, since his time in Congress, of favoring tariffs, and so Southerners knew he was not going to give them any breaks, as Jackson had. Southern fire-eaters wanted to believe that AL had it in mind to end slavery, but I doubt that. Had the South not seceded, they probably would have remained Slave states for at least the rest of the 1800s. So if Lincoln had allowed that, as I theorize, then he would have been on the wrong side of history too-- right?