West Point moves to vanquish Confederate symbols from campus

[j brown's body]

Where are your citations proving Lincoln's bonafides as an abolitionist?

Post #1448

 

[post]

Jackson's response to the nullification crisis and the threat of secession was not identical to Lincoln's. Jackson fomented the crisis by campaigning for high tariffs, but though he instituted the Force Bill he also worked behind the scenes to avert war by getting the 1832 tariff reduced.

Nullification Crisis

Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. What started as a debate over the Tariff...

www.battlefields.org

Lincoln's response to secession consisted of a few ambivalent olive branches, but he did nothing comparable to the tariff reductions, but insisted that the Southern states had to pay the duties as they were. And why? Because the newly minted Republicans were far more money hungry than the old Whigs, and Lincoln was their bought and paid for vassal.

Just post it, don't beat around the bush.

The Heart of the Matter | James M. McPherson

Two issues that have generated the most animated debates among historians of the American Civil War are the causes of the war and the causes of

www.nybooks.com

James M. McPherson
October 23, 1997 issue
"...In his second inaugural address on March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln looked back over four years of war that had cost 620,000 lives. Everyone recognized, he said, that the institution of slavery “was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war.” Most historians have agreed with Lincoln. Fifty years after the war the leading Civil War historian of his day, James Ford Rhodes, expressed this consensus: “Of the American Civil War it may safely be asserted that there was a single cause, slavery.”

Three quarters of a century later, Ken and Ric Burns’s enormously popular PBS television documentary The Civil War and the accompanying book made the same point. Slavery was the “one issue that more than any other divided North from South,” they wrote. Slavery “is the heart of the matter in any explanation” of the decision by Southern leaders for secession and war.

Yet from the first some of Lincoln’s contemporaries and some historians have resisted this thesis. Most of them have been white Southerners. The president and vice-president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis and Alexander H. Stephens, set the tone for these dissenters. In books written soon after the war, both made the same point: Southern states did not secede and go to war to protect slavery, but to vindicate state rights. The Confederacy, Davis insisted, fought solely for “the defense of an inherent, unalienable right…to withdraw from a Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered…. The existence of African servitude was in no wise the cause of the conflict, but only an incident.”.."

Stephens likewise insisted that “Slavery, so called, was but the question on which these antagonistic principles… of Federation, on the one side, and Centralism, or Consolidation, on the other…were finally brought into… collision with each other on the field of battle.”

 

[Jezcoe]

Jackson's response to the nullification crisis and the threat of secession was not identical to Lincoln's. Jackson fomented the crisis by campaigning for high tariffs, but though he instituted the Force Bill he also worked behind the scenes to avert war by getting the 1832 tariff reduced.

Nullification Crisis

Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. What started as a debate over the Tariff...

www.battlefields.org

Lincoln's response to secession consisted of a few ambivalent olive branches, but he did nothing comparable to the tariff reductions, but insisted that the Southern states had to pay the duties as they were. And why? Because the newly minted Republicans were far more money hungry than the old Whigs, and Lincoln was their bought and paid for vassal.

What Tarriff was it that the States seceded over? I am sure they are named in their articles of Secession. Should be easy to find.

 

[post]

Reuniting the country. As you, yourself, point out. Whites in the north and south were racists. That is what united them. Thus, blacks and slavery had to be written out of the war. It had become about something else.

a CLASS war... division amongst the dominant race

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4481&context=etd

Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2011
"We Have Never Known What Death W nown What Death Was Befor as Before"--A Just W "--A Just War Doctrine Critique of U.S. History Textbooks
Mark Pearcy University of South Florida, mpearcy@mail.usf.edu
131
"..generally in favor of seceding and poor whites less sanguine on the issue. In fact, Williams states, there was sentiment among some landowners for secession not to prevent the calamity of Republican rule, but instead to keep abolitionism from springing up among the lower classes of southern whites—―one secessionist warned that if the slaveholders did not take their states out of the Union, there would indeed soon be ‗an Abolition party in the South, of Southern men.‘ Another frankly admitted, ‗I mistrust our own people more than I fear all of the efforts of the Abolitionists‖ (p. 52). What is beyond dispute, as Williams illustrates, is that the election of Abraham Lincoln was viewed as a tipping point in relations between the North and South, though the degree to which such an event represented an irrevocable break between the two regions is debatable. Interestingly, Williams also includes the perspective of a group largely ignored in most narratives of this event—with regard to slaves, Williams points out that ―slaves wanted to be set free, and by 1860 they believed Lincoln would do just that. How could they think otherwise with secessionists ranting throughout the South that Lincoln‘s ultimate goal was to free them?‖ Williams describes a planned slave uprising in Chesterfield County, Virginia, where slaves were sure that Lincoln would come to help them, and claims that such attempts were common in the weeks after the election in November 1860 (p. 53). With the white South‘s traditional fear of slave rebellion already stoked by the recent attempt of John Brown, even the barest mention of widespread uprisings would have been seen as a dire threat.

Textbooks are largely unanimous in their depiction of the election of 1860 as the primary cause of secession and disunion. Many books try to establish the sense of national foreboding that seemed to hang over the United States prior to the presidential.."

 

[Variant]

Lincoln was no abolitionist; he just wanted to restrict slavery in the territories to preserve a theoretical voting bloc of "free states."

I'm using their reasoning, however flimsy and flawed the election of 1860 was the last straw.

 

[Ouroboros]

Social contacts are voided when one party secedes from them. In what fantasy world are Southern slavers allowed to dissolve the social contract and still be protected under it? No. Once they seceded Lincoln had no obligation to a bunch of mutant slavers. And try as you might, when you start talking about what slave states have a right to do you betray where your sympathies lie.

Lincoln didn't recognize the social contract of the Constitution at all, so your argument dissolves into the usual smoke and moonbeams. He claimed that the 1776 contract was perpetual and that was his excuse for making war. His motivation still had nothing to do with slavery except insofar as slavery endangered Northern interests.

 

[Ouroboros]

You simply do not know the facts and are too tied up in Lost Cause propaganda.

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."

Link

Don't go away mad, just go away.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh pooh. Enough with the bs.
That civic pride was in telling black prople..the south is still the south despite the fact we lost tge war. and you are a second class citizen.

Now that's some good bs there, but you can't take credit because others thought it for you.

 

[Ouroboros]

States left the Union before Lincoln became president.

Chew on this for a while. It even has footnotes. A lot of them

Tariffs and the Civil War

How many left before the votes were counted?

 

[Ouroboros]

Post #1448

Still just in your imagination.

 

[Ouroboros]

Just post it, don't beat around the bush.

The Heart of the Matter | James M. McPherson

Two issues that have generated the most animated debates among historians of the American Civil War are the causes of the war and the causes of

www.nybooks.com

James M. McPherson
October 23, 1997 issue
"...In his second inaugural address on March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln looked back over four years of war that had cost 620,000 lives. Everyone recognized, he said, that the institution of slavery “was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war.” Most historians have agreed with Lincoln. Fifty years after the war the leading Civil War historian of his day, James Ford Rhodes, expressed this consensus: “Of the American Civil War it may safely be asserted that there was a single cause, slavery.”

Three quarters of a century later, Ken and Ric Burns’s enormously popular PBS television documentary The Civil War and the accompanying book made the same point. Slavery was the “one issue that more than any other divided North from South,” they wrote. Slavery “is the heart of the matter in any explanation” of the decision by Southern leaders for secession and war.

Yet from the first some of Lincoln’s contemporaries and some historians have resisted this thesis. Most of them have been white Southerners. The president and vice-president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis and Alexander H. Stephens, set the tone for these dissenters. In books written soon after the war, both made the same point: Southern states did not secede and go to war to protect slavery, but to vindicate state rights. The Confederacy, Davis insisted, fought solely for “the defense of an inherent, unalienable right…to withdraw from a Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered…. The existence of African servitude was in no wise the cause of the conflict, but only an incident.”.."

Stephens likewise insisted that “Slavery, so called, was but the question on which these antagonistic principles… of Federation, on the one side, and Centralism, or Consolidation, on the other…were finally brought into… collision with each other on the field of battle.”

No bushes here, just the goalposts you conveniently moved. Where's your defense of your position re Jackson?

 

[Ouroboros]

What Tarriff was it that the States seceded over? I am sure they are named in their articles of Secession. Should be easy to find.

The one that was in force in the year the new Republican Party was formed, as was covered in earlier posts.

 

[Jezcoe]

The one that was in force in the year the new Republican Party was formed, as was covered in earlier posts.

The Tariff of 1857? That one?

 

[Master Debator]

Lincoln didn't recognize the social contract of the Constitution at all, so your argument dissolves into the usual smoke and moonbeams. He claimed that the 1776 contract was perpetual and that was his excuse for making war. His motivation still had nothing to do with slavery except insofar as slavery endangered Northern interests.

I don't give a flying **** about Lincoln's motivations. I'm more interested in what legitimacy you think slave states should have.

 

[Nickyjo]

That author was a ****ing moron. Why would we count how many people owned slaves? That would be like counting how many people own cars. Could we posit that most people don't want cars because 90% of children don't own one? Families owned slaves and depending on the state you live in it could be over 40% of families owned slaves or in some states as low as 20%. What's clear is that Southern Culture idolaized slavery and families who didn't own slaves aspired to own one eventually.

So are you suggesting think the South would have continued to use slavery indefinitely, despite whatever economical, political and moral principals gained ground in the US? I don’t think average farmer or worker in the US wanted to own slaves as much as he might want to be rich, producing more income with or without slaves in the South or more income without them in the North.

The war was about slavery, most particularly the spread of newly formed free states which would endanger the South’s “particular institution” due to the changes that expansion would bring to numbers of reps and especially Senators. But I doubt the average Johnny Reb had skin in that particular political game.

 

[jaeger19]

Now that's some good bs there, but you can't take credit because others thought it for you.

Nope. Just historical fact.

 

[Ouroboros]

a CLASS war... division amongst the dominant race

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4481&context=etd

Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2011
"We Have Never Known What Death W nown What Death Was Befor as Before"--A Just W "--A Just War Doctrine Critique of U.S. History Textbooks
Mark Pearcy University of South Florida, mpearcy@mail.usf.edu
131
"..generally in favor of seceding and poor whites less sanguine on the issue. In fact, Williams states, there was sentiment among some landowners for secession not to prevent the calamity of Republican rule, but instead to keep abolitionism from springing up among the lower classes of southern whites—―one secessionist warned that if the slaveholders did not take their states out of the Union, there would indeed soon be ‗an Abolition party in the South, of Southern men.‘ Another frankly admitted, ‗I mistrust our own people more than I fear all of the efforts of the Abolitionists‖ (p. 52). What is beyond dispute, as Williams illustrates, is that the election of Abraham Lincoln was viewed as a tipping point in relations between the North and South, though the degree to which such an event represented an irrevocable break between the two regions is debatable. Interestingly, Williams also includes the perspective of a group largely ignored in most narratives of this event—with regard to slaves, Williams points out that ―slaves wanted to be set free, and by 1860 they believed Lincoln would do just that. How could they think otherwise with secessionists ranting throughout the South that Lincoln‘s ultimate goal was to free them?‖ Williams describes a planned slave uprising in Chesterfield County, Virginia, where slaves were sure that Lincoln would come to help them, and claims that such attempts were common in the weeks after the election in November 1860 (p. 53). With the white South‘s traditional fear of slave rebellion already stoked by the recent attempt of John Brown, even the barest mention of widespread uprisings would have been seen as a dire threat.

Textbooks are largely unanimous in their depiction of the election of 1860 as the primary cause of secession and disunion. Many books try to establish the sense of national foreboding that seemed to hang over the United States prior to the presidential.."

And all this nattering proves what, exactly?

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm using their reasoning, however flimsy and flawed the election of 1860 was the last straw.

The disproportionate tariffs had been going on long before Lincoln ran for the Presidency.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Tariff of 1857? That one?

That would be the one Lincoln refused to modify, in contrast to the actions of Jackson vis-a-vis the Nullification Crisis.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't give a flying **** about Lincoln's motivations. I'm more interested in what legitimacy you think slave states should have.

They had the precise legitimacy of every other state in the Union, and that meant that like all states they had the right to secede.

The motivations of Lincoln and the Northern politicians continue to be relevant to the original topic, which is to suss out whether the actions of the Confederacy deserve any more censure than those of the Northerners.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope. Just historical fact.

Modern interpretation, nothing more.

 

[vegas giants]

They had the precise legitimacy of every other state in the Union, and that meant that like all states they had the right to secede.

The motivations of Lincoln and the Northern politicians continue to be relevant to the original topic, which is to suss out whether the actions of the Confederacy deserve any more censure than those of the Northerners.

Once the south fired on the north all legal considerations can be dismissed


They had to be put down

 

[vegas giants]

The disproportionate tariffs had been going on long before Lincoln ran for the Presidency.

If the tariffs were high don't pay them. But don't fire on US troops

 

[Ouroboros]

Once the south fired on the north all legal considerations can be dismissed


They had to be put down

That's the tired narrative, but it bears no resemblance to truth.

 

[vegas giants]

That's the tired narrative, but it bears no resemblance to truth.

Your opinion is noted and dismissed