I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Cotton States

[Tolkien R.R.J]

What conspiracy theory? What part are you disagreeing with?

Is it...

1. Most white people in the south were poor, couldn't afford slaves, and were kept out of work because of slavery....therefore they were against slavery continuing?

There's a ton of evidence for that.

No, the conspiracy on post 34

"So southern politicians had to convince people that secession wasn't about keep slavery alive....it was about their "rights". They wanted this poor, uneducated, underclass of white men to believe they were fighting against tyranny....which many could relate to as they had descended from many who fought in the American Revolution."


As for your number 1. I dont disagree this happened, it is a reason many went west or were anti slavery. However I dont think it as large as you make it out to be. Most people did not have jobs, that is a modern [and i think ant republican and anti american founders intentions] way of slavery, sorry life. Most were independent farmers, self sufficient. This is before lincoln, regulations, usda, and taxes made this way of life near impossible.

2. That southern politicians were being disingenuous about why they were seceding? Is that the part you don't believe? That they were pretending it wasn't about slavery so they could get the support of poor whites?

There's also a ton of evidence for that...but it's less direct. Obviously they won't be admitting to their lies on official records. The other politicians of the day knew what the war was all about...

"You say you are fighting for liberty. Yes you are fighting for liberty: liberty to keep four millions of your fellow-beings in ignorance and degradation;–liberty to separate parents and children, husband and wife, brother and sister;–liberty to steal the products of their labor, exacted with many a cruel lash and bitter tear;–liberty to seduce their wives and daughters, and to sell your own children into bondage;–liberty to kill these children with impunity, when the murder cannot be proven by one of pure white blood. This is the kind of liberty–the liberty to do wrong–which Satan, Chief of the fallen Angels, was contending for when he was cast into Hell."

-David Hunter to Jefferson Davis in 1863.

So clearly, few believed that "states' rights" was the reason for secession.

Yes. That would be the one. So we have the support of southern politicians for the most part and the populace. Where is the disconnection? Where is the support? you quote one northern general and than claim few believed it was states rights. I gave you dozens of quotes and causes from the declaration and speeches of the leaders of the south and you ignore them? than say one northern radical republican abolitionist decides what secession was over? this is the perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. Yet i also dont ignore massive text i dislike, slavery did play a role as i admitted.


“It has often been said that we were fighting for the perpetuation of slavery. This was not so. We were simply fighting for our right to keep slaves if we wanted to. We were fighting for state rights- rights to be allowed to make our own laws for our particular states”
-Joseph F Burke Confederate colonial

The question was, is the federal government confined to the powers in the constitution, or was it allowed to step outside of its delegated powers by the states thus nullifying the constitution and transforming the republic, into a centralized nation.

That the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the constitution, and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.
-Democratic Plank 1 1852

That when the settlers in a Territory, having an adequate population, form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences, and being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States, and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery.
-Southern Democrat Party Platform 1860

Do you say anything about the repeated topic of slavery in the Mississippi declaration? Or do you just quote one tiny section that isn't about slavery?

You've been quote mining the entire time.

I haven't denied that slavery was ultimately about money, that the southern economy was entirely dependent upon it, or any of these points.

I'm not saying that the south just loved having slaves and that's why they fought a war. That's obviously not the case. The war was about slavery though...and it's continued legality which was under constant attack.

Indeed i quote it and pasted it for you last post. Further i never said slavery was all about money, If you know anything of antebellum american history [ or if you read any of my posts or threads] than you understand why i am more than confused at your conclusions. Slavery was about maintaining a government of limited powers, limited to the Constitution.


I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Upper South- American Civil war
I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Cotton States
Slavery's Impact On the Cotton States Causes of Secession


If the federal could overstep its boundaries, than it would in fact become limitless, and overstep in other areas, that is just what happened and we suffer from it today. This will be posted/updated soon.

From Union to Empire The Political Effects of the Civil war


Further slavery was not under attack.


“Secessionists were well aware that slavery was under no immediate threat within the Union. Indeed, some anti-secessionists, especially those with the largest investment in slave property, argued that slavery was safer under the Union than in a new experiment in government.”
-Clyde Wilson distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina

“The condition of slavery in the several states would remain just the same weather it [the rebellion] succeeds or fails”
-U.S Secretary Seward to US Ambassador to France

“The war was at first was not about slavery, but was a struggle over the limits of states rights and the powers of the government in washington”
-David G Martin PHD in History from Princeton University


“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.”
-Robert E Lee 1870

“It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their Independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”
-Woodrow Wilson, “A History of The American People”


Slavery was Safer in the Union Than the Confederacy


“Howard county [MO] is true to the union” “our slaveholders think it is the sure bulwark of our slave property”
-Abeil Lenord Whig party leader at the onset of the war

Slavery was constitutionally protected in both the northern and southerner states for the entire civil war. Lincoln and the north supported the Corwin amendment that would have protected slavery forever in the the U.S constitution and used it to try and stop secession.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof[ slavery], including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
-Corwin Amendment

The united states supreme court had ruled in favor of the fugitive slave laws and the use of federal agents to return runaway slaves to their masters. A confederacy would have no protection for runaways north. Lincoln and the north did not invade the south to end slavery. Lincoln had no problem with the upper south slave states in the union as he called for volunteers to attack the deep south to repress the rebellion [not slavery]. The 1860 republican platform plank 4 said slavery was a state issue and they would not interfere with slavery. Lincoln also said the states had the right to chose on slavery and he would not interfere with slavery.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere Untitled with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so”
-Abraham Lincoln Inaugural address

After the deep south left the union the federal government decided it would not end slavery in the house on Feb 1861 and senate march 2 1861. On July 22 1861 congress declared “This war is not waged , nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions [slavery] of those states.” October 8th 1861 the newspaper Washington D.C National Intelligence said “The existing war had no direct relation to slavery.”

“Seven-tenths of our people owned no slaves at all, and to say the least of it, felt no great and enduring enthusiasm for its [slavery’s] preservation, especially when it seemed to them that it was in no danger.’ ”
-John G. Barrett, The Civil War in North Carolina


Fight to Maintain Slavery? Or put Down Arms to Maintain Slavery?

“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
-Confederate Major General John B. Gordon Causes of the Civil War

If the south fought only for slavery, it only had to not fight the war. Slavery was protected and not under attack by Lincoln in the states it already existed. At any time as Lincoln promised, the south just had to lay down arms and come back into the union with slavery intact, yet they chose to fight for another cause.

“The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1st and still keep its slaves”
-John Canaan The Peninsula campaign

“Peace now would save slavery, while a continued war would obliterate the last vestiges of it”
- Raleigh North Carolina newspaper July 1863 quoted in Americas Civil war Magazine

Virginia alone freed more slaves prior to civil war than NY, NJ, Pennsylvania,and New England put together. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a “Great independent country with no slavery.” On June 1861 Mary Chestnut said “Slavery has got to go of course.”

“We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded.”
-Moses Jacob Ezekiel



Added cause of the war had nothing to do with secession. Lincolns choice to wage war on the south was not because of slavery.



“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states... the love of money is the root of this...the quarrel between the north and south is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel”

-Charles Dickens, 1862

"The southern confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing..it is very clear that the south gains by this process and we lose. No .. we must not tlet the south go".
-Union Democrat Manchester, New Hampshire 19 February 1861

In 1860 America tariffs were the main source of income of the federal government. The south largely being agrarian and import/export, payed as much as 75% of federal revenue. The vast majority of this income was used in the north and to help northern industry.

"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe . This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually."
-Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860


“They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the people’s pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars [$1.5 to $1.7 billion in 2012 dollars] per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the union.”
-New Orleans Daily Crescent, 1861

Not only that, but the south and the confederate constitution allowed for free trade. So not only would the federal government lose up to 80% of its income, southern ports would dominate trade with Europe [no tax on imports/exports] and the north would be further be pushed into poverty. Across the north northern newspapers started calling for war saying the loos of revenue and the fact the southern ports would dominate, the south could not be allowed to leave. A northern democrat from Ohio plainly stated what the war was over when he said

“The passage of an obscure, ill-considered, ill-digested, and unstatesmanlike high protectionist tariff act, commonly known as the ‘Morrill Tariff. The result was as inevitable as the laws of trade are inexorable. Trade and commerce . . . began to look South . . . . Threatened thus with the loss of both political power and wealth, or the repeal of the tariff, and, at last, of both, New England –and Pennsylvania . . . demanded, now coercion and civil war, with all its horrors . . .”
-Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham D-Ohio 1863

The Confederate States of America would have diverted a great deal of commerce away from the north unless the Union, too, reduced its tariff rates. That reduction, however, was unacceptable to Lincoln and the Republicans, who considered the tariff the “centerpiece” of their ambitious program for a greatly expanded central government. So Lincoln could not let them go. In Lincoln inaugural address he said [and other times] he would not go to war over slavery, but would over “properties” [referring to fort Sumner were tariffs were collected.]. He said the only thing that could cause bloodshed was over the tax collection. Lincoln was ok with slavery in the south, but if you did not pay to the federal government, war would come. When the blockade of the south was announced Lincoln gave a speech saying the cause of the blockade was over the tariffs.

In the book Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War by Marc Egnal said “Economics more than high moral concerns produced the civil war”. The heart of the war was economical differences growing between the protectionist, manufacturing northeast and the free trade agrarian south. The republican party had strong anti slavery sentiments, but they did not overshadow republicans wants of the homestead act, internal improvements and economic nationalism.


“And after years of treating the American South as an agricultural colony, New England set out in 1861 to strip it of political power.”
-Bernhard Thuersam Director Cape Fear Historical Institute NC

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Lol you're quoting the Confederate Constitution? How can you not know that importing slaves had already been banned since 1808???

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

What part of this are you denying? That the south was still defying this law after 1808?

There's tons of evidence for that as well.

Once more for someone who hold so many historical errors of this time period, why even post? post 34 you said

"why did the south continually ignore the laws against importing slaves? They criticized northern states for ignoring fugitive slave laws....while ignoring laws against importing slaves the whole time!"



If you read your post the claim was they left over slavery because they were importing slaves. I pointed out the slave trade was conducted 99.9% by northerns, and the csa outlawed the slave trade thus showing they did not leave the union to open the slave trade, they were against it. Finally the south was not importing slaves as you claim. Once more why post when your history is so far off?

If the south was all about state's rights....how could they abide the Scott decision? It ignored the right of states to free slaves.

That would be like saying that "gun control" is a state's issue, then complaining when a state that prohibits open carry arrests you for carrying in the open. Just because the state you came from allows it doesn't mean the state you enter must allow it as well.

Either it's a state issue or not. The south didn't care at all when the federal government "overreached" on the rights of northern states...and I don't need any conspiracy theories for that. They celebrated the Scott decision.

Why didn't the southern states protest when the federal government nullified the laws of northern states that freed slaves?

Were they not concerned about "states' rights" at that time? Or did they only pretend to care about state's rights when the federal government interfered with slavery?

It's not exactly difficult to see the answer here. The south didn't care about state's rights as long as they got their slaves.


Well that's my point. If it was an issue of state's rights...then they would have at least argued against federal overreach in the north...but they didn't. I'm not saying they would have gone to war over it, but they would have at least argued against it.

When the federal government ruled that if someone was once a slave, they were always a slave, the south was happy that the federal government was protecting their states' rights and nullifying the north's.

That was the entire reason that Lincoln's election had them so worried. They knew that if the federal government could nullify northern laws regarding slavery (which they were happy to have it do)....then logically, the federal government could also nullify southern laws regarding slavery.

That's what they were afraid of.

Lets try this once more.


“They have disregarded the plain obligations of the Constitution of the United States, to deliver up fugitives bound to service, without which guarantee on their part, they know, that the Constitution would never have been formed; and by acts passed in their State Legislatures, they have practically nullified it.”
-Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861

The south from the creation of the union had constitutional protection of its property that included recognized slave property. The north by violating that right [and Dread Scott supreme court ruling/ fugitive slave laws] would not allow them their property and would in essence, steal it [by not working with federal workers]by not returning slaves. The south were not second class citizens and their property was constitutionally to be treated as any other property. It would be the same as if a Vermonters horse wondered across the border to New York, only to have a resident of that state keep the horse and say we dont recognize your right to this property. That is not a protection of the individuals property as granted under the constitution and was a cause of secession.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
-Article 4 clause 3 us Constitution

“Any person held to service or labor in one state escaping into another should not, in consequence of any law or regulation theorf, be discharged from such service or labor, but should be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor might be due by laws of his state. Thus and thus only, by the reciprocal guarantee of all the rights of every state against interference on the part of another.”
-President Franklin Pierce 1856



The truth is [upcoming thread] from the time of the union the south was concerned with states rights no matter the issue. Issues that had nothing to do with slavery yet the south did the same as in 1860. But the winner writes the history you swallow and ask for more. I should have done that thread first my bad.



As for why Lincolns election upset them, i would rather go by history rather than your opinions.


See under election of a republican president and csa Constitution.
I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Cotton States

see under Slavery's Impact on the Upper South Slavery was Safer in the Union Than the Confederacy Fight to Maintain Slavery? Or put Down Arms to Maintain Slavery?and Jefferson Davis CSA President/ Abraham Lincoln USA President

I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Upper South- American Civil war

 

[Ana the Ist]

post 21 you said the following

"as their views are tied to racism, but racist views of blacks as subhumans who were more closely related to apes than whites was common in the north as well. I'll gladly give you evidence of this, for your benefit, and show that it predates the theory of evolution by such a long time....one couldn't hope to realistically blame Darwin for it.



Here are the definitions.


Definition of subhuman
(Entry 1 of 2)

: less than human: such as

a : failing to attain the level (as of morality or intelligence) associated with normal human beings

b : unsuitable to or unfit for human beingssubhuman living conditions

c : of or relating to a taxonomic group lower than that of humansthe subhuman primates



Clearly the third was your use in context. Know if all you are saying now, is that whites viewed blacks as less intelligent, than ok, i dont disagree. Blacks have lower I Q's just as asians have higher and were less educated so I would not deny that. Of course you never did say that.


As for supporting your claims that southerners viewed blacks as sub human or lesser evolved [evolution was around before darwin] has never been supported as we both know. That a northerner Taney on the supermen court thought them less intelligent, ok, so did lincoln and many southerners. If that is what you want to claim was meant by you saying "subhuman" and "more closely related to apes", than we can agree. But maybe to avoid the confusion next time you could just say they viewed them as less intelligent.

And this is why when I provide a link for evidence...evidence that you asked for...you should try reading it.

1770s-1850s: One race or several species?

That's evidence for definition c....as it states...

"The "species" theory, polygenism, held that human "races" were of different lineages and suggested a hierarchy outlined in the "Chain of Being" that positioned Africans between man and lower primates."

Now, most southerners weren't scientists...so I went with definition a. If however, you want to make it about definition c, I've already provided evidence for that as well.

Josiah Nott...a southern scientist...advanced the idea of polygenesis. It's all there in the article.

Is that clear enough? I've met every request for evidence you made.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

And this is why when I provide a link for evidence...evidence that you asked for...you should try reading it.

1770s-1850s: One race or several species?

I apologize if I missed it, but I did not see anything said from a southerner or a pro slavery advocate. But i see you have decided to go back to your original statement. Please stop moving the goal post.

That's evidence for definition c....as it states...

"The "species" theory, polygenism, held that human "races" were of different lineages and suggested a hierarchy outlined in the "Chain of Being" that positioned Africans between man and lower primates."

Now, most southerners weren't scientists...so I went with definition a. If however, you want to make it about definition c, I've already provided evidence for that as well.

Josiah Nott...a southern scientist...advanced the idea of polygenesis. It's all there in the article.

Is that clear enough? I've met every request for evidence you made.

Well i stand corrected. One southern evolutionist anti christian promoted a version that would qualify as sub human. This of course was not a common belief in the christian south.