For all the South-haters...

[Perotista]

From James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom.

"The greatest danger to American survival at midcentury . . . was sectional conflict between North and South over the future of slavery." p.7

"The slavery issue would probably have caused an eventual showdown between North and South in any circumstances. . . . The country's territorial growth might have created a danger of dismemberment by centrifugal force in any event. But slavery brought this danger to a head at midcentury." p.8

"Although speeches and editorials in the upper South bristled with references to rights, liberty, state sovereignty, honor, resistance to coercion, and identity with southern brothers, such rhetoric could not conceal the fundamental issue of slavery." p.283

"A concern for northern unity underlay this [Lincoln's] decision to keep a low profile on the slavery issue. . . . By the same token, an explicit avowal that the defense of slavery was a primary Confederate war aim might have proven more divisive than unifying in the South. Both sides, therefore, shoved slavery under the rug as they concentrated their energies on mobilizing eager citizen soldiers and devising strategies to use them." p.312

James M. McPherson is Edwards Professor of American History at Princeton University.

Evening Jack, I think McPherson hit the nail on the head. The slave owning aristocracy convince the poor redneck farmers who own no slaves that they were fighting for Georgia or Alabama and them Yankees were coming down to take everything away from them. Once they enlisted they were told, "Georgia is proud of you boy, you're fighting for Georgia and Georgian rights. You can change Georgia for pretty much any southern state. Fact is very few men who fought for the south owned slaves, that is except the officers.

Lincoln also stressed preserving the union, he once said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

 

[ChezC3]

That is totally conjecture, the South tossed any and all possible solutions out the window when it declared war to preserve its economic order, re a slave economy.

This is a very dishonest assessment of the events that transpired. Yes, it is conjecture, because that was not what had happen, however the evidence to support my premise is far more realistic than.....

Again, your premise assumes that the Corwin amendment was in play in the South previous to the plan for secession and attacking. You are trying to make an argument that it was a greater force than the movement FOR war by the Southern states. I don't believe it had that power. I believe the South honestly thought it could fight and win a battle to preserve its economic system.

the demonization you've espoused here....

Why would you incline your thoughts toward the South wanting war? It was Lincoln's provocation at Ft. Sumter which was the catalyst for War. The likelihood of a successful ratification really goes without saying, that is IF the secession of the South was due to the issue of slavery, which as I've said it wasn't.

 

[Jack Hays]

Evening Jack, I think McPherson hit the nail on the head. The slave owning aristocracy convince the poor redneck farmers who own no slaves that they were fighting for Georgia or Alabama and them Yankees were coming down to take everything away from them. Once they enlisted they were told, "Georgia is proud of you boy, you're fighting for Georgia and Georgian rights. You can change Georgia for pretty much any southern state. Fact is very few men who fought for the south owned slaves, that is except the officers.

Lincoln also stressed preserving the union, he once said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Yup. Good evening, Pero.:2wave:

Not only did slavery bring on the war, it constrained Confederate military options and contributed to the South's defeat by precluding resort to continued resistance by guerrilla warfare.

"Thus slavery brought on the conflict, but, with the underlying problem of race relations, it paradoxically ended it as well, by making fainthearted southerners too fearful to employ their one, otherwise invincible, military weapon." p.438
from Why the South Lost the Civil War, Richard E. Beringer, Herman Hattaway, Archer Jones, William N. Still, Jr.

 

[ChezC3]

Yup. Sad that so much energy is wasted on such a ludicrous cause.

How's that tea, loose leaf, the queen mum likes you to make her, wasn't it? I apologize I wasn't aware of who you were before, now that I know, the wonderful offerings this site provides its posters shall get put to good use, so -- and I say this with great pleasure and finality -- to you, I say good BYE!

 

[Jack Hays]

How's that tea, loose leaf, the queen mum likes you to make her, wasn't it? I apologize I wasn't aware of who you were before, now that I know, the wonderful offerings this site provides its posters shall get put to good use, so -- and I say this with great pleasure and finality -- to you, I say good BYE!

This post makes even less sense than your earlier rants.:2wave:

 

[Fisher]

How's that tea, loose leaf, the queen mum likes you to make her, wasn't it? I apologize I wasn't aware of who you were before, now that I know, the wonderful offerings this site provides its posters shall get put to good use, so -- and I say this with great pleasure and finality -- to you, I say good BYE!

The Queen Mum is dead and it is the Irish who are the ones who are addicted to tea the way Americans are coffee and soda.

 

[ChezC3]

The Queen Mum is dead and it is the Irish who are the ones who are addicted to tea the way Americans are coffee and soda.

Well, here's the thing, said poster who I've let drop into my iggy box was a person on another political site who, how shall I say, didn't quite get along with me. The tea comment was in reference to a conversation he and I had and who undoubtedly now -- in that little iggy box I see above your post which I won't be opening -- is pretending he hasn't the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about.

Had I looked at his "join date" and taken the time to read his "about me" I could have saved everyone a lot of time by putting him on iggy a lot sooner. Oh well, I'll be sure to keep a more vigilant eye in the future.

 

[Fisher]

Well, here's the thing, said poster who I've let drop into my iggy box was a person on another political site who, how shall I say, didn't quite get along with me. The tea comment was in reference to a conversation he and I had and who undoubtedly now -- in that little iggy box I see above your post which I won't be opening -- is pretending he hasn't the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about.

Had I looked at his "join date" and taken the time to read his "about me" I could have saved everyone a lot of time by putting him on iggy a lot sooner. Oh well, I'll be sure to keep a more vigilant eye in the future.

That is fine. I was just recently following blog links to other blogs to other blogs in the academic history arena and found one that seemed focused around gastronomy and history that had a piece about how the Irish became addicted to tea--really, really addicted to tea--during the potato famine and that has continued to this day. I figured I would never again in my life get to use that useless little factoid so I had to leap on it while I could

 

[ChezC3]

That is fine. I was just recently following blog links to other blogs to other blogs in the academic history arena and found one that seemed focused around gastronomy and history that had a piece about how the Irish became addicted to tea--really, really addicted to tea--during the potato famine and that has continued to this day. I figured I would never again in my life get to use that useless little factoid so I had to leap on it while I could

I drink deep from the well of useless information, no prob! :drink

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, here's the thing, said poster who I've let drop into my iggy box was a person on another political site who, how shall I say, didn't quite get along with me. The tea comment was in reference to a conversation he and I had and who undoubtedly now -- in that little iggy box I see above your post which I won't be opening -- is pretending he hasn't the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about.

Had I looked at his "join date" and taken the time to read his "about me" I could have saved everyone a lot of time by putting him on iggy a lot sooner. Oh well, I'll be sure to keep a more vigilant eye in the future.

Odd, since I have no recollection whatsoever of you, or any poster holding your peculiar views.

 

[sangha]

I drink deep from the well of useless information,

you misspelled "inaccurate" and "propaganda"

 

[ChezC3]

you misspelled "inaccurate" and "propaganda"

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man...

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, here's the thing, said poster who I've let drop into my iggy box was a person on another political site who, how shall I say, didn't quite get along with me. The tea comment was in reference to a conversation he and I had and who undoubtedly now -- in that little iggy box I see above your post which I won't be opening -- is pretending he hasn't the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about.

Had I looked at his "join date" and taken the time to read his "about me" I could have saved everyone a lot of time by putting him on iggy a lot sooner. Oh well, I'll be sure to keep a more vigilant eye in the future.

Hard to see how you could have missed who I am since I used the same screen name at the previous site.:2wave:

 

[polgara]

That is fine. I was just recently following blog links to other blogs to other blogs in the academic history arena and found one that seemed focused around gastronomy and history that had a piece about how the Irish became addicted to tea--really, really addicted to tea--during the potato famine and that has continued to this day. I figured I would never again in my life get to use that useless little factoid so I had to leap on it while I could

Good evening, Fisher. :2wave:

This site is great. Look at how much smarter you are now, knowing that useless factoid. File it away for use at your next party, and casually throw it out, just as you are leaving.... It will drive them crazy, wondering what prompted it! :lamo:

 

[Fisher]

Good evening, Fisher. :2wave:

This site is great. Look at how much smarter you are now, knowing that useless factoid. File it away for use at your next party, and casually throw it out, just as you are leaving.... It will drive them crazy, wondering what prompted it! :lamo:

Good evening to you as well. I am pretty well known in my social circle for being the knower of all things useless, so unfortunately, it wouldn't get a second thought

 

[polgara]

Good evening to you as well. I am pretty well known in my social circle for being the knower of all things useless, so unfortunately, it wouldn't get a second thought

LOL! Good one! :2bow:

 

[polgara]

I was late to this party this evening, so I'm going to even it out by leaving early. Fair is fair.

G'nite to all. :2wave:

Be well.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

This is a very dishonest assessment of the events that transpired. Yes, it is conjecture, because that was not what had happen, however the evidence to support my premise is far more realistic than.....

So you argument is that preservation of the slave economy was NOT the motivation by the South for war, but if the Corwin amend had passed, preserving slavery, then the South would not have seceded, would not have gone to war.

Does the conflict within the basis of your argument at any point become apparent to you?

the demonization you've espoused here....

Why would you incline your thoughts toward the South wanting war? It was Lincoln's provocation at Ft. Sumter which was the catalyst for War. The likelihood of a successful ratification really goes without saying, that is IF the secession of the South was due to the issue of slavery, which as I've said it wasn't.

Are you so ignorant of the history of the war that you have not even looked at the events leading to the bombardment of Ft. Sumter?

"An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson, using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West, failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area, except for Fort Sumter.

During the early months of 1861, the situation around Fort Sumter increasingly began to resemble a siege. In March, Brig. Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard, the first general officer of the newly formed Confederate States of America, was placed in command of Confederate forces in Charleston. Beauregard energetically directed the strengthening of batteries around Charleston harbor aimed at Fort Sumter. Conditions in the fort grew dire as the Union soldiers rushed to complete the installation of additional guns. Anderson was short of men, food, and supplies."
Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Now lets get back to whether or not the South seceded, left the Union, and attacked Union forces as a matter of defending the institution of the slave economy of the Ante Bellum South.

Would you take the words of John Brown Gordon (February 6, 1832 – January 9, 1904), one of Robert E. Lee's most trusted Confederate generals during the American Civil War as being a legitimate view of this question?

John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA

"The causes of the war will be found at the foundation of our political fabric, in our complex organism, in the fundamental law, in the Constitution itself, in the conflicting constructions which it invited, and in the institution of slavery which it recognized and was intended to protect........

.....Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woeful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had long been gathered--the tallest pine in the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war."

"Reminiscences Of The Civil War"


Or how about the Honorable Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, of Virginia, Secretary of State for the Confederacy:

"The late civil war which raged in the United States has been very generally attributed to the abolition of slavery as its cause. When we consider how deeply the institutions of southern society and the operations of southern industry were founded in slavery, we must admit that this was cause enough to have produced such a result."

"Origin Of The Late War"

 

[ChezC3]

So you argument is that preservation of the slave economy was NOT the motivation by the South for war, but if the Corwin amend had passed, preserving slavery, then the South would not have seceded, would not have gone to war.

Does the conflict within the basis of your argument at any point become apparent to you?

Does changing context and dragging poor Aunt Sallie out every chance you get ever get tiresome for you?. :yawn:

It does for me, so to you I say good day! :2wave:

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Does changing context and dragging poor Aunt Sallie out every chance you get ever get tiresome for you?. :yawn:

It does for me, so to you I say good day! :2wave:

"These colors don't run"....

My argument is because and has always been because it wasn't slavery that was the issue, it was the occasion for the issue of self determination. If it wasn't about self determination, if the Issue was in fact about slavery, the Corwin Amendment would have layed that issue to rest and instead of secession, instead of war we'd of had ratification and reunification without one drop of blood being spilled.

And again, this "self determination" WAS the determination to keep slavery in place, it predated Corwin, secession was already happening prior to Corwin, the blockade of Sumter was already happening by SC forces, the momentum of the South towards war was bolstered by the fears of Lincoln's election...all of this predating this puny little amendment which was an appeasement to the South....to NOT go to war over the issue of slavery....which you say was not the reason in the first place.

 

[Jack Hays]

Does changing context and dragging poor Aunt Sallie out every chance you get ever get tiresome for you?. :yawn:

It does for me, so to you I say good day! :2wave:

"These colors don't run"....


And again, this "self determination" WAS the determination to keep slavery in place, it predated Corwin, secession was already happening prior to Corwin, the blockade of Sumter was already happening by SC forces, the momentum of the South towards war was bolstered by the fears of Lincoln's election...all of this predating this puny little amendment which was an appeasement to the South....to NOT go to war over the issue of slavery....which you say was not the reason in the first place.

CC3 is like Braxton Bragg's army on Missionary Ridge. When facing determined opposition he runs.

 

[rhinefire]

Just compare the two, north and south, The north has Newark, the south has Charlotte: the north has Philadelphia, the south has Mobile: the north has Chicago, the south has Jacksonville: the north has Boston, the south has Houston; the north has Cleveland, the south has Atlanta. Having grown up in Chicago's south side then moving to Houdston, Tx 30 years ago the north has always been the poophole of America and always will be.

 

[nota bene]

Funny you should mention this. I always describe the "Golden Triangle" (Beaumont area) as the rectum of Texas. (My BFF lives there.) :mrgreen:

 

[Fisher]

The North didn't give a crap about black people. It was a power struggle in the Congress and going after the source of the South's money was the goal. The North could have given a rat's ass about black people and even Lincoln thought they should be sent back to Africa. It is and it has always been and so shall it always be about power. The rest are just details.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

The North didn't give a crap about black people. It was a power struggle in the Congress and going after the source of the South's money was the goal. The North could have given a rat's ass about black people and even Lincoln thought they should be sent back to Africa. It is and it has always been and so shall it always be about power. The rest are just details.

1. I like how you describe North as if it was distinct from black people. Black people were a part of the North and I suspect they, at the very least, gave a crap about themselves. Perhaps, you should have said "white Northerners didn't give a crap about black people" if that's what you were attempting to say.

2. I like that revisionism. Sure, some white people didn't care about blacks, but some did. This whole revisionist history that claims the fight over slavery was all about power is getting out of hand. For many white Americans, slavery was a moral issue and the proper treatment of blacks, in general, was a moral issue. It wasn't all about power for everyone.