The Confederacy is the symbol of racist losers.

[Pookie]

That's ridiculous. Lincoln at no time said he intended to end slavery. He very clearly stated the opposite, repeatedly.

Ridiculous as you may want to think it was, that's the way it was. The South Carolina Declaration of Succession is very clear on it. Your incredulity is pure naivete.

 

[Queersetti]

That's ridiculous. Lincoln at no time said he intended to end slavery. He very clearly stated the opposite, repeatedly.

Political rhetoric often becomes it's own reality. Many secessionists believed that Lincoln did not mean what he said when he tried to reassure them. Others thought that Lincoln was a pawn being controlled by more strongly anti-slavery factions in his party, and that he would be pressured into attacking slavery whether he wanted to act or not.

But the fact is, the writing was on the wall. There had been a balance of power in the US for half a century between slave and non-slave states. It was clear to every one that that balance was near the tipping point. The population and wealth of the north were expanding at rates far surpassing the south, and it was obvious that, with much more area still to be settled at northern latitudes, political growth would favor the north as the plains and far western states entered the union as free states.

Lincoln's election may have been the spark, but the issue of territorial expansion was the fuse and slavery was the powder keg.

 

[Queersetti]

Not necessary. And I've enjoyed discussing this with you. These discussions usually turn nasty. You've been a gentleman, and I compliment you for it.

Thanks to you as well. It's a complicated issue, filled with land mines.

 

[toubab]

Ridiculous as you may want to think it was, that's the way it was. The South Carolina Declaration of Succession is very clear on it. Your incredulity is pure naivete.

South Carolina was not the entire South. They were foolish to fire on Fort Sumter, for example. Too bad they were so rash and full of themselves. The war was a great tragedy. Slavery would eventually have died without it.

 

[phrodeau]

South Carolina was not the entire South. They were foolish to fire on Fort Sumter, for example. Too bad they were so rash and full of themselves. The war was a great tragedy. Slavery would eventually have died without it.

Were? What has changed?

 

[toubab]

Thanks to you as well. It's a complicated issue, filled with land mines.

It truly is, and I don't like it being reduced to being simply about slavery or the abolition of slavery.

 

[toubab]

Were? What has changed?

There are fools everywhere.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

South Carolina was not the entire South. They were foolish to fire on Fort Sumter, for example. Too bad they were so rash and full of themselves. The war was a great tragedy. Slavery would eventually have died without it.

How long do you figure it would have taken for slavery to die out on it's own? 10 years? 20? 50? How long after that would you think civil rights for those emancipated slaves have taken?

I spent a good long time living in the South, and there are those even today who would own slaves given half the chance.

 

[Lord Pmann]

I say as someone with a degree in American History, you are incorrect.

Every other issue that is raised as an alternative cause of the conflict is inextricably entangled with slavery.

Causation and correlation, my friend. The issue is state and federal rights. The subject is slavery.

 

[toubab]

How long do you figure it would have taken for slavery to die out on it's own?10 years? 20? 50? How long after that would you think civil rights for those emancipated slaves have taken?

I spent a good long time living in the South, and there are those even today who would own slaves given half the chance.

It's only a guess, but I'd say by 1880 to 1890, at the latest. Certainly before the turn of the century. Civil rights being assured would probably have taken about as long as they did in the North after the war, which took some time, as I'm sure you know. Some say it's still a work in progress.

 

[Pookie]

South Carolina was not the entire South. ...

South Carolina led the way.

From Georgia's:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

...

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

From Alabama's:

WHEREAS, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security; therefore, ...

From Mississippi's:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

Shall I go on?

 

[phrodeau]

That's ridiculous. Lincoln at no time said he intended to end slavery. He very clearly stated the opposite, repeatedly.

Tch. Typical Republican.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

It's only a guess, but I'd say by 1880 to 1890, at the latest. Certainly before the turn of the century. Civil rights being assured would probably have taken about as long as they did in the North after the war, which took some time, as I'm sure you know. Some say it's still a work in progress.

So "only" one more generation, perhaps two born into bondage. So the Union should have let them go peacefully?

That's almost like saying we should leave serial killers alone because, you know, they'll get tired of killing people eventually.

Your fantasy would come about only:

If you ignore the fact that several of the states which seceded never intended to give up their "right" to own slaves as stated in their declarations.

-AND-

If the Union had allowed the South to "go peacefully", which was never the South's intention by the way, they would have (as was pointed out already) gone after Mexico, Central America, South America and the Caribbean.

 

[Queersetti]

It truly is, and I don't like it being reduced to being simply about slavery or the abolition of slavery.

Fair enough, but as I believe I said, the other issues are inseparable from the slavery issue.

For example, people will point to tariffs as a major area of disagreement between the regions. But then we have to ask why they held different views, and the issue of slavery prominently plays into that discussion.

 

[toubab]

South Carolina led the way.

From Georgia's:



From Alabama's:



From Mississippi's:




Shall I go on?

You keep ignoring the cause of the war, which was secession. The South seceded. The reason didn't matter to the North. The North refused to allow the South to go in peace, under any circumstances. Thus the war ensued.

 

[toubab]

Tch. Typical Republican.

Laughing at that. Foolish thinking.

 

[toubab]

So "only" one more generation, perhaps two born into bondage. So the Union should have let them go peacefully?

That's almost like saying we should leave serial killers alone because, you know, they'll get tired of killing people eventually.

Your fantasy would come about only:

If you ignore the fact that several of the states which seceded never intended to give up their "right" to own slaves as stated in their declarations.

-AND-

If the Union had allowed the South to "go peacefully", which was never the South's intention by the way, they would have (as was pointed out already) gone after Mexico, Central America, South America and the Caribbean.

I haven't said anything about what the Union should or should not have done. I'm quite certain slavery would have ended relatively soon in the South just as it did throughout this hemisphere.

There would have been wars down the road, undoubtedly. There always are.

 

[Pookie]

You keep ignoring the cause of the war, which was secession. The South seceded. The reason didn't matter to the North. The North refused to allow the South to go in peace, under any circumstances. Thus the war ensued.

Here is what began our discussion:

It's not a dodge question. The South had many reasons for preferring to leave the Union. Preserving the institution of slavery was only one of them, and not paramount as there was no real threat to end the institution. The North was benefiting from it greatly, so had no desire to end it.

The reason the South seceded was for perceived benefit to the South, much of it economic in nature. The reason the North decided a war was better than allowing the South to go in peace was largely economic in nature also.

Did you forget that or are you attempting to move the goalposts now?

 

[toubab]

Here is what began our discussion:



Did you forget that or are you attempting to move the goalposts now?

I'm not moving any goalposts. The cause of the war was secession. The cause of secession is irrelevant.

 

[toubab]

Fair enough, but as I believe I said, the other issues are inseparable from the slavery issue.

For example, people will point to tariffs as a major area of disagreement between the regions. But then we have to ask why they held different views, and the issue of slavery prominently plays into that discussion.

I've said repeatedly slavery touched on many of the disagreements between the North and the South. The bottom line is the South got fed up with the North and wanted to secede from the Union, and the North said no, you cannot secede. A war resulted.

 

[Pookie]

I'm not moving any goalposts. The cause of the war was secession. The cause of secession is irrelevant.

I'll take that as "moving the goalposts".

 

[toubab]

I'll take that as "moving the goalposts".

Take it as you like. It's what I've said from the beginning.

 

[Pookie]

Take it as you like. It's what I've said from the beginning.

I quoted what you said. You choose to ignore it now after I provided clear evidence to the contrary. So be it.

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

when someone flies the confederate flag, it means their parents were siblings bro!

Stew

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I'm not moving any goalposts. The cause of the war was secession. The cause of secession is irrelevant.

That's like saying that the cause of death was a gunshot. But WHY the person was shot is irrelevant.

Sorry, it's VERY relevant.