• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W: #1372][W: #1004] [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Tigerace117 said:
Oh look, even more racism from you. “You keep lauding blacks”. How the hell do you post **** like that and expect anyone to believe you aren’t racist.

“ ] In late 1860, Houston campaigned across his home state, calling on Texans to resist those who advocated for secession if Republican nominee Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election.[80]

After Lincoln won the November 1860 presidential election, several Southern states seceded from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America.[81] A Texas political convention voted to secede from the United States on February 1, 1861, and Houston proclaimed that Texas was once again an independent republic, but he refused to recognize that same convention's authority to join Texas to the Confederacy. After Houston refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy, the legislature declared the governorship vacant. Houston did not recognize the validity of his removal, but he did not attempt to use force to remain in office, and he refused aid from the federal government to prevent his removal.”

Sam Houston - Wikipedia

The Confederate scumbags ran him out of office and shunned him for daring to oppose the slaveocracy.
Click to expand...

so many people think as he does.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Robertinfremont said:
Fred, at first post, I had not yet saw over 5 minutes of the professors presentation. I rather enjoyed it. But I was left dangling by his claim the South did not leave the union due to slavery. I tend to believe they did leave to keep slavery working. If Abe would not do it, take off and keep it in their own constitution. And man this pisses off many Democrats.

Fred, notice though they refuse to attack the 12 slave owning presidents. I want them to attack 12 slave owning presidents. And they refuse to.
Click to expand...
Understood, Robert.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Tigerace117 said:
The message is utter garbage and factually wrong, and that is because the messenger is nothing more than a Lost Cause hack.

Finding the bias of a source is rather important....though I’m not surprised you don’t know that.
Click to expand...
Personal attacks won't advance your cause but suppose that's all you have.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Fred C Dobbs II said:
Personal attacks won't advance your cause but suppose that's all you have.
Click to expand...

“Lost Cause” bullcrap has been debunked numerous times. It’s not a “personal attack” go point out that racism is (and always has been) the driving force behind it.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Robertinfremont said:
Well that comes closer than those who claim my posts are over slavery.

Why would I defend secession one can ask?

My reasons are this

1. To allow states to remove themselves from a central government that overpowers them. Like the cop beating the black man, the black is right to defend himself. Even the criminal black deserves protection from cops engaged in beatings.
2. Because this nation is supposed to be free. Free of oppression. Even Democrats protest oppression so why not join me?
3. States were deemed at the time to have the right to secede. It was brought up even in the declaration of independence.
4. Less known but equally important is there were previous incidents of states in the North seceding.
Click to expand...

1. You are talking about the theory of Natural Rights, which you probably believe to supersede the Constitution. But if we follow the lens of the law, the Constitution, as deemed by the Supreme Court, does not allow a legal right to secede. To do so is treason. However, the ruling also states that it is NOT unconstitutional if the federal government allows it to happen by virtue of amending the Constitution to allow that particular state(s) to secede...or if by federal fiat. But otherwise, no state has the right to secede. In the legal sense, which is what we are talking about here.

2. This nation is and was free. The states who went into rebellion did so because they could not vote to counter the states of the north. So, as sore losers, they chose to try to secede because they didn't want to...in the end...pay taxes and give up their slaves.

3. Again, the states do not have a right to secede. The Declaration of Independence allowed for the Articles of Confederation, so in that period of time your position is correct. But, as we switched over to the Constitution, the states stopped being a literal confederation of individual powers and consolidated as one true nation under the Constitution, which in time, as mentioned before was upheld by the Supreme Court that secession without permission was unconstitutional and considered treason. Further...if you insist that the Declaration to be end all be all document on the issue...then it can only legally apply to the original thirteen colonies that became states. Most of the rest of the US became states under the Constitution...which means that over half of the Confederacy would be considered to be treasonous while only 4 states could legally leave the US.

4. Yes, as there were other incidents in the south as well. But that does not alter the point in any way nor does it matter...they all failed either in legality, public opinion or by war.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

More reviosist history. The South left as they did not want to loose there source for free labor, plain and simple. The Southern apologist can hide behind the States rights BS all they want. Like most things in the good ol USA, it was about money, and that is the bottom line. It's not the Norths fault the South did not divirsify their economy.

All you Southerners can go back to reading Gone With the Wind. Glorify your overt passion for slavery, and live in that bubble that African Americans were just so happy being enslaved.

Union Soldiers are heroes, they fought for there country, Conferderates were anti American, hell bent on dividing America.
 
Last edited:
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Jason Warfield said:
1. You are talking about the theory of Natural Rights, which you probably believe to supersede the Constitution. But if we follow the lens of the law, the Constitution, as deemed by the Supreme Court, does not allow a legal right to secede. To do so is treason. However, the ruling also states that it is NOT unconstitutional if the federal government allows it to happen by virtue of amending the Constitution to allow that particular state(s) to secede...or if by federal fiat. But otherwise, no state has the right to secede. In the legal sense, which is what we are talking about here.

2. This nation is and was free. The states who went into rebellion did so because they could not vote to counter the states of the north. So, as sore losers, they chose to try to secede because they didn't want to...in the end...pay taxes and give up their slaves.

3. Again, the states do not have a right to secede. The Declaration of Independence allowed for the Articles of Confederation, so in that period of time your position is correct. But, as we switched over to the Constitution, the states stopped being a literal confederation of individual powers and consolidated as one true nation under the Constitution, which in time, as mentioned before was upheld by the Supreme Court that secession without permission was unconstitutional and considered treason. Further...if you insist that the Declaration to be end all be all document on the issue...then it can only legally apply to the original thirteen colonies that became states. Most of the rest of the US became states under the Constitution...which means that over half of the Confederacy would be considered to be treasonous while only 4 states could legally leave the US.

4. Yes, as there were other incidents in the south as well. But that does not alter the point in any way nor does it matter...they all failed either in legality, public opinion or by war.
Click to expand...

At the time States seceded, the only time the SC decided the case, the SC ruled against Lincoln.

After war, TX wanted bonds paid, the SC then ruled against the S leaving the Union.

But the men in 1861 had no such ruling at that time.

If 15 yrs from today, the SC rules against say CA, those today in CA do not know the future.

When Washington seceded from the Brits, he never was charged with treason.

Anyway you took off on the wrong track due to not knowing the actual issue.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

yankintx said:
More reviosist history. The South left as they did not want to loose there source for free labor, plain and simple. The Southern apologist can hide behind the States rights BS all they want. Like most things in the good ol USA, it was about money, and that is the bottom line. It's not the North fault the South did not divirsify their economy.
Click to expand...

Name calling is not a good argument. As an art form, it diminishes the case for those calling names.

Everybody understands the economics to slavery.

Keep in mind the very low voter numbers that selected Abe at the time. And keep in mind that about 2 percent wanted his war. To the then nation, his was was about grabbing back the South for his purposes. He did not say he went to war to free slaves, quite the opposite.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Tigerace117 said:
“Lost Cause” bullcrap has been debunked numerous times. It’s not a “personal attack” go point out that racism is (and always has been) the driving force behind it.
Click to expand...

If you are black, you think you have a good reason to call names over black people. But Abe said he did not wage war over black people. Keep in mind that they did not use our up to date form of reasoning, they knew slavery was legal and defended when Abe invaded due to his invasion. Abe clearly said race was not the issue. Are you denying Abe said that?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Fred C Dobbs II said:
Personal attacks won't advance your cause but suppose that's all you have.
Click to expand...

That is actually his entire argument. Attacking the poster. It is about all he has on his plate.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

CaughtInThe said:
so many people think as he does.
Click to expand...

I have seen hundreds of people argue over the South leaving. And one has to both know history and think deeply to finally get it. And I have had a lot of support and also others not supporting in the past 20 some odd years.

Professor Di. Lorenzo who speaks to this same topic has made a superior case to mine only because he is not shouted down by his audiences. He catches any resistance only after he lectures on this for an hour.

The normal path the pro Lincoln followers try on me is the Case made by TX past the war over bonds. The flaw there is the ruling was not prior to the war but after it was all over.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Fledermaus said:
The federal ship that was sent to resupply the fort was fired upon January 9, 1861.

First act of war.

Before Lincoln.

And resupplying a FEDERAL fort isn't an act of war.

Firing on them is.

And, South Carolina ceded Fort Sumter to the federal government long before the war. It was not South Carolina's to take back.
Click to expand...

Your argument is more rational than say Tigers is.

However ponder the case to be made against Gen. Washington. Britain sent ships to supply those fighters. And Washington is defended though to the law of the day, he was committing treason. All he was based on was a paper saying they had the right to leave their then union with England. But if the logic favoring Washington is sound, so is the logic favoring the South .
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

This is what Abe the Outlaw said was his reason for calling up 75,000 troops.

Nary a word about slavery and in fact he did not use the word Ft. Sumter.

The Response To The Firing On Fort Sumter
Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.
-Abraham Lincoln (April 15, 1861)
Click to expand...

The Decision - Lincoln's Response to the Fort Sumter Crisis
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Robertinfremont said:
I have seen hundreds of people argue over the South leaving. And one has to both know history and think deeply to finally get it. And I have had a lot of support and also others not supporting in the past 20 some odd years.

Professor Di. Lorenzo who speaks to this same topic has made a superior case to mine only because he is not shouted down by his audiences. He catches any resistance only after he lectures on this for an hour.

The normal path the pro Lincoln followers try on me is the Case made by TX past the war over bonds. The flaw there is the ruling was not prior to the war but after it was all over.
Click to expand...

you're not a deep thinker. you're talking about free room and board for captives.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

OK, so here's the truth. Slavery was one of several reasons why the South seceded. At the time and for many decades after, this was commonly understood and taught all around the country. Over the last 50-60 years, however, a new line of thought was developed that said slavery was the only reason. All other reasons were just covers or were tied to slavery. This was done so that the other reasons could be dismissed as being inextricably linked to slavery, and anyone who, today, advocated for those other reasons, could be labeled as a racist or supporter of slavery. So if you support States' rights and a less powerful central government, your opponents will label you a neo-confederate racist who wishes to bring back slavery. In response to this, people have started to claim the complete opposite--that secession had nothing to do with slavery at all. If you examine their political views, you will indubitably discover they support things like States' rights and a less powerful central government.

Both sides are wrong. Slavery was part of why the South seceded, but it was not the only factor. There were many issues that divided the country, not just the issue of slavery.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Liberty One said:
OK, so here's the truth. Slavery was one of several reasons why the South seceded. At the time and for many decades after, this was commonly understood and taught all around the country. Over the last 50-60 years, however, a new line of thought was developed that said slavery was the only reason. All other reasons were just covers or were tied to slavery. This was done so that the other reasons could be dismissed as being inextricably linked to slavery, and anyone who, today, advocated for those other reasons, could be labeled as a racist or supporter of slavery. So if you support States' rights and a less powerful central government, your opponents will label you a neo-confederate racist who wishes to bring back slavery. In response to this, people have started to claim the complete opposite--that secession had nothing to do with slavery at all. If you examine their political views, you will indubitably discover they support things like States' rights and a less powerful central government.

Both sides are wrong. Slavery was part of why the South seceded, but it was not the only factor. There were many issues that divided the country, not just the issue of slavery.
Click to expand...

That is true but slavery was at the very least a very important factor
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Robertinfremont said:
Your argument is more rational than say Tigers is.

However ponder the case to be made against Gen. Washington. Britain sent ships to supply those fighters. And Washington is defended though to the law of the day, he was committing treason. All he was based on was a paper saying they had the right to leave their then union with England. But if the logic favoring Washington is sound, so is the logic favoring the South .
Click to expand...

Your response is irrelevant.

No state of war existed between the north and the south when the south chose to fire on the ships engaged in the legal and lawful resupply of federal government property.

This was a war of the South's choosing.

And the first shots predated President Lincoln.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Liberty One said:
OK, so here's the truth. Slavery was one of several reasons why the South seceded. At the time and for many decades after, this was commonly understood and taught all around the country. Over the last 50-60 years, however, a new line of thought was developed that said slavery was the only reason. All other reasons were just covers or were tied to slavery. This was done so that the other reasons could be dismissed as being inextricably linked to slavery, and anyone who, today, advocated for those other reasons, could be labeled as a racist or supporter of slavery. So if you support States' rights and a less powerful central government, your opponents will label you a neo-confederate racist who wishes to bring back slavery. In response to this, people have started to claim the complete opposite--that secession had nothing to do with slavery at all. If you examine their political views, you will indubitably discover they support things like States' rights and a less powerful central government.

Both sides are wrong. Slavery was part of why the South seceded, but it was not the only factor. There were many issues that divided the country, not just the issue of slavery.
Click to expand...

The issue of Slavery vs. Other issues is as a mountain vs. a molehill.
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Robertinfremont said:
In my opinion, the States realized other states of the North had seceded. Short lived, but still they had. And the letters from the South said they wanted slavery preserved yet included a constitutional clause stipulating no slaves can be imported.

Many true scholars actually have read the constitution of the South as I have. I note few posters appear to have read those documents.

Do you know the cost then of a slave? Today a thousand dollars is not chump change. A slave then cost the plantations when buying one $1,000 very often due to bidding up prices. That was then in their dollars. What is a then $1000 amount to right now? Many thousands.

Do you give away valuable property?

Hell if you had to make a purchase today of say $50,000 would you hand it over?

Should the south have used the slaves to fight war? Believe it or not, this was considered to have merit. Keep in mind when Abe the outlaw, invaded, he kept declaring his war had no thing to do with blacks. He used a different excuse to invade VA. And he did not claim it was over Ft. Sumter. He said to put the union back together.

Never has the Sumter caused the war crowd produced documents from Abe the Outlaw he used that as his excuse. wonder why not?

Show me paper saying from Abe he invaded due to Sumter being fired at. Anybody.

One more point to make. Washington had over 300 slaves on his lands. Jefferson came in second place as to slaves. Neither president had an army to keep slaves in line. 300 angry blacks could easily overpower the men on the two estates. When whites went to fight the war, back at home, slaves at home could easily kill the women. but one has to ask, why didn't any of that happen?
Click to expand...

So if slaves were cheaper hey would have freed them?
 
re: [W:475]The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston

Robertinfremont said:
Name calling is not a good argument. As an art form, it diminishes the case for those calling names.

Everybody understands the economics to slavery.

Keep in mind the very low voter numbers that selected Abe at the time. And keep in mind that about 2 percent wanted his war. To the then nation, his was was about grabbing back the South for his purposes. He did not say he went to war to free slaves, quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Much of that is because there were four candidates running. Lincoln won a plurality of the popular vote and a majority of the electoral vote.

As to your claim "about 2 percent wanted his war" have you Citation for that?

And how is it Lincoln's war?

The south engaged in hostilities before Lincoln took office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom