Second Thoughts on Secession

[jmdrake]

I am not sure there is any logic to follow. The secession had nothing to do with slavery. That was not an issue till the end of the war.

The secession had to do with money, Banks in particular, and unfair practices. It was kicked off by the Federal attack on a southern fort.

Ok. I'm not going to get into another endless argument over this so I'll just post the information and let people read it. In the southern declarations of secession they said, point blank, that one of the main reasons they were seceding was to protect slavery and to allow it's "natural expansion" into the western territories.

link 1: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

In his first inaugural address Lincoln said that while he couldn't end slavery where it already existed, he didn't see any constitutional reason why it had to be allowed to spread to the new territories. He also said the constitution was silent on whether fugitive slaves had to be returned by state or by federal authority.

link 2: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

The southern states saw both as and attack on the institution of slavery and said as much in the declarations of secession. (See link 1).

As for the banks, they international bankers were very much AGAINST Lincoln and they funded the south.

See: http://american_almanac.tripod.com/lincoln3.htm

That should come as no surprise. The previous president to oppose secession (threatened to hang secessionists) was Andrew Jackson and he was very much against the international bankers.

http://haysvillelibrary.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/andrew-jackson-the-nullification-crisis/

Now about this time someone might be thinking "But if secession was in part about slavery why would slave owner Jackson be against it"? Because when the south finally seceded they did so for multiple reasons ONE of which was slavery! People get stuck in this "it was either about slavery or it wasn't" mode and don't do a broader analysis. Remember, when South Carolina first tried to secede they got little support. It wasn't until slavery became an issue that support for secession reached critical mass.

Now, I know already that posting this will do absolutely no good. People will probably go off on "Lincoln was really an evil racist SOB that hated blacks" tangent, or "Sherman really did the south in" tangent or my favorite "northerners were racists too" tangent. I've even seen someone go so far as to claim the declarations of secession were "made up" or that they "didn't mean anything because not every man, woman and child in the south signed them" (forgetting that the Declaration of Independence was also signed by a minority of people.)

I'm not sure where the "we can't admit that slavery was even a partial factor in the civil war" mentality comes from, but I suspect it has something to do with the moral stigma attached (in modern times) to slavery. In fact in the past I've seen people jump to the "you're just trying to put the south down" argument when I've said no such thing. The truth is nobody is perfect and no society is perfect. Ron Paul, no defender of Lincoln or "southern hater" by any stretch of the imagination, had this to say about slavery and the civil war.

link 3: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul76.html

Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.


That's a common sense approach to evaluating the history of the civil war that I wish more people would take.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[STAND-or-fall]

Well there JM Drake, Let it be known to you that the 'articles of seccesion ' were written by POLITICIANS, and we all know how honest those kind of cats can be. Truth of the matter is that only six percent of the southron population owned slaves. Of those six percent over one half were northern owned industrial syndicates. They were the antebellum equivelant of Du Pont, Monsanto, or Enron. The rest of the southrons just wanted to be able to sell their crops overseas for a fair price, unencumberd by the rediculous penalty imposed by the Morrill Tariff. I hope I have given you enough keywords to do some productive reasearch. And no, I did not misspell southron.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ok. I'm not going to get into another endless argument over this so I'll just post the information and let people read it. In the southern declarations of secession they said, point blank, that one of the main reasons they were seceding was to protect slavery and to allow it's "natural expansion" into the western territories.

link 1: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

In his first inaugural address Lincoln said that while he couldn't end slavery where it already existed, he didn't see any constitutional reason why it had to be allowed to spread to the new territories. He also said the constitution was silent on whether fugitive slaves had to be returned by state or by federal authority.

link 2: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

The southern states saw both as and attack on the institution of slavery and said as much in the declarations of secession. (See link 1).

As for the banks, they international bankers were very much AGAINST Lincoln and they funded the south.

See: http://american_almanac.tripod.com/lincoln3.htm

That should come as no surprise. The previous president to oppose secession (threatened to hang secessionists) was Andrew Jackson and he was very much against the international bankers.

http://haysvillelibrary.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/andrew-jackson-the-nullification-crisis/

Now about this time someone might be thinking "But if secession was in part about slavery why would slave owner Jackson be against it"? Because when the south finally seceded they did so for multiple reasons ONE of which was slavery! People get stuck in this "it was either about slavery or it wasn't" mode and don't do a broader analysis. Remember, when South Carolina first tried to secede they got little support. It wasn't until slavery became an issue that support for secession reached critical mass.

Now, I know already that posting this will do absolutely no good. People will probably go off on "Lincoln was really an evil racist SOB that hated blacks" tangent, or "Sherman really did the south in" tangent or my favorite "northerners were racists too" tangent. I've even seen someone go so far as to claim the declarations of secession were "made up" or that they "didn't mean anything because not every man, woman and child in the south signed them" (forgetting that the Declaration of Independence was also signed by a minority of people.)

I'm not sure where the "we can't admit that slavery was even a partial factor in the civil war" mentality comes from, but I suspect it has something to do with the moral stigma attached (in modern times) to slavery. In fact in the past I've seen people jump to the "you're just trying to put the south down" argument when I've said no such thing. The truth is nobody is perfect and no society is perfect. Ron Paul, no defender of Lincoln or "southern hater" by any stretch of the imagination, had this to say about slavery and the civil war.

link 3: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul76.html

Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.


That's a common sense approach to evaluating the history of the civil war that I wish more people would take.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Of course slavery was an issue, however, it wasn't the dominating issue. Secondly, it wasn't a Civil War. The United States of America, invaded the Confederate States of America. I hate the term Civil War, because it's inaccurate. Secondly, when people state that the North wasn't any better (in regards to slavery, blacks, etc.), it is to dismantle the notion of moral ambivalence. The North wasn't a saint, in fact, many Northern States (KY, MO, etc.) still had slavery AFTER the War of Northern Aggression.

Lastly, I find it hilarious how you attempt to smear the Confederacy when in fact, it was Lincoln who wanted all blacks to return to Africa, suspended Habeus Corpus, imprisoned political dissidents (ELECTED DEMOCRATS), occupied and terrorized the South for a decade after the war, and other egregious atrocities.

Neither side was perfect, however, no matter what kind of ambiguous moral reasons you try to persuade people into, the fact of the matter is, every State has the right of secession. We are a Union or Confederacy, and the States are sovereign, not provinces.

Proud Southerner.

 

[YumYum]

The Union attacked the South because they hated the South. The South was prosperous and free in democracy and loved liberty: everything that goes against the North. The North hated the South's religious freedoms and equal opportunities. That is why the North attacked the South.

 

[jmdrake]

Lastly, I find it hilarious how you attempt to smear the Confederacy

LOL. This is predictable. You admit that my point that slavery was AN ISSUE in the civil war war right and yet you LIE and claim I'm attempting to "smear the confederacy"! And yes I said "lie". I responded to someone who said slavery was not a part of the civil war by giving irrefutable proof that it was. I also covered the "Lincoln wasn't a saint and the North wasn't perfect" argument. But you still have your head stuck so far up your confederate butt that anything less the "the south was as pure as the driven snow" isn't good enough for you. Oh well. You can't blame me for trying.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[axiomata]

the union attacked the south because they hated the south. The south was prosperous and free in democracy and loved liberty: Everything that goes against the north. The north hated the south's religious freedoms and equal opportunities. That is why the north attacked the south.

lol!

The only thing worse than learning about the Civil War in the public school system is being homeschooled by neoconfederates.

 

[jmdrake]

[deleted]

 

[YumYum]

The Union attacked the South because they hated the South. The South was prosperous and free in democracy and loved liberty: everything that goes against the North. The North hated the South's religious freedoms and equal opportunities. That is why the North attacked the South.

Oh, I'm sorry. I got al-Queda and the North mixed up.

 

[axiomata]

Oh, I'm sorry. I got al-Queda and the North mixed up.

Sorry, I missed the joke. Ignore my precious post. I was actually going to make the point that you sounded like a neocon figuring out why al Queda attacked the US.

 

[YumYum]

Sorry, I missed the joke. Ignore my precious post. I was actually going to make the point that you sounded like a neocon figuring out why al Queda attacked the US.

No problema.

I was going to say that General Lee's reason for invading Pennsylvania was: "Well, its better we fight the terrorists over thar than here".

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

LOL. This is predictable. You admit that my point that slavery was AN ISSUE in the civil war war right and yet you LIE and claim I'm attempting to "smear the confederacy"! And yes I said "lie". I responded to someone who said slavery was not a part of the civil war by giving irrefutable proof that it was. I also covered the "Lincoln wasn't a saint and the North wasn't perfect" argument. But you still have your head stuck so far up your confederate butt that anything less the "the south was as pure as the driven snow" isn't good enough for you. Oh well. You can't blame me for trying.

Regards,

John M. Drake

You didn't read my post. Check the last few lines. It doesn't matter what kind of moral ambivalence you are trying to shove up peoples asses. The fact of the matter is, States have the RIGHT OF SECESSION, period. The North had no authority, and waged an illegal aggressive war.

The South could have easily won, but, they decided not to attack the North in the beginning of the war. We won Manasses, routed the North, yet, refused to march the short march from there to DC. We were waging a war of defense, not offense.

If we are to point out moral ambivalence, the North was far worse than the South. So, you can continue down that road if you want to.

 

[jmdrake]

Well there JM Drake, Let it be known to you that the 'articles of seccesion ' were written by POLITICIANS, and we all know how honest those kind of cats can be.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were also written by POLITICIANS! I guess we can just ignore them too.

Truth of the matter is that only six percent of the southron population owned slaves.

The truth of the matter is that most Americans couldn't vote when the U.S. constitution was first ratified because they weren't property owners. The truth is that the "power elite" in any country are the ones who really decide why that country goes to war. Most Americans don't own oil companies. That doesn't mean oil wasn't a HUGE factor in why we go to war. The truth also is that in areas of the south where nobody owned slaves (like Northern Alabama) there was a tendency to secede from the confederacy!

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/southeastern_us/14700

Of those six percent over one half were northern owned industrial syndicates. They were the antebellum equivelant of Du Pont, Monsanto, or Enron. The rest of the southrons just wanted to be able to sell their crops overseas for a fair price, unencumberd by the rediculous penalty imposed by the Morrill Tariff.

Ummm....most of those that didn't own slaves didn't own plantations either. They were dirt poor sharecroppers, slave overseers, trappers etc and couldn't even spell the word "tarrif".

I hope I have given you enough keywords to do some productive reasearch. And no, I did not misspell southron.

Do some research? I've already done it. I've heard all your arguments before and they simply don't hold water. I'm not claiming the tariffs weren't an issue (although they weren't for the vast majority of southerners who weren't big exporters). Besides the Morrill Tariff had nothing to do with selling crops overseas. It had everything to do with increasing the price of imported goods. Maybe YOU should do some research.

Finally I never said slavery was the only issue. In fact I specifically mentioned the tariff issue as causing South Carolina to secede when Jackson was president, and years before the "Morrill Tariff" was passed.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Danke]

Wasn't Lincoln worry about the split of the Union from the European bankers supporting the South to divide us and regain their foothold? I think there are quotes from him saying he would keep slavery if it preserved the Union. I recall the Czar of Russia supporting the North and blockading ports like NY and San Fransisco against the British during the "Civil War" because of this worry. Of course his family paid the ultimate price later. Follow the money...

 

[jmdrake]

You didn't read my post. Check the last few lines. It doesn't matter what kind of moral ambivalence you are trying to shove up peoples asses. The fact of the matter is, States have the RIGHT OF SECESSION, period. The North had no authority, and waged an illegal aggressive war.

The South could have easily won, but, they decided not to attack the North in the beginning of the war. We won Manasses, routed the North, yet, refused to march the short march from there to DC. We were waging a war of defense, not offense.

If we are to point out moral ambivalence, the North was far worse than the South. So, you can continue down that road if you want to.

I did read your post. My argument had nothing to do with whether or not the south had a "right to secede". Once again I was responding to a post where someone claimed slavery had nothing to do with the south's motivation to secede. Clearly it did. You've admitted as much. You're arguing with a straw man.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

Wasn't Lincoln worry about the split of the Union from the European bankers supporting the South to divide us and regain their foothold? I think there are quotes from him saying he would keep slavery if it preserved the Union. I recall the Czar of Russia supporting the North and blockading ports like NY and San Fransisco against the British during the "Civil War" because of this worry. Of course his family paid the ultimate price later. Follow the money...

1) Yes.
2) Yes. The actual quote is "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also so that."

Lincoln clearly went to war to preserve the union. Had the south not seceded he would have taken affirmative steps that could have eventually ended slavery. (Restricting slavery to the states where it already existed, refusing to enforce fugitive slave laws and seeking the same "compensated emancipation" plan that Ron Paul endorsed on Meet The Press.) But he would NOT have launched a war to end slavery.

3) Yes. I read about the Czar somewhere too.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[YumYum]

There were a lot of issues that caused the Civil War, and slavery was at the base of things. According to the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island", on page 374, author G. Edward Griffin quotes Otto von Bismark's observation:

"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over Europe and the world. Of course, in the "inner circle" of Finance, the voice of the Rothschilds prevailed. They saw an opportunity for prodigious booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, burdened with debt to the financiers,...in place of a vigorous Republic sufficient unto herself. Therefore, they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to drive a wedge between the two parts of the Union....The rupture between the North and the South became inevitable; the masters of European finance employed all their forces to bring it about and turn it to their advantage."

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I did read your post. My argument had nothing to do with whether or not the south had a "right to secede". Once again I was responding to a post where someone claimed slavery had nothing to do with the south's motivation to secede. Clearly it did. You've admitted as much. You're arguing with a straw man.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Then why bring up points about the North? Inuendo's don't fly around here. So, the North did the same things, but that doesn't matter! The South was evil for seceeding! That's what I got from your post. You could have done without the North bits, but you obviously included them for a reason.

Let me ask you. What would you have done in 1861? Fight for the North or South? Curious.

 

[Danke]

There were a lot of issues that caused the Civil War, and slavery was at the base of things. According to the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island", on page 374, author G. Edward Griffin quotes Otto von Bismark's observation:

"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over Europe and the world. Of course, in the "inner circle" of Finance, the voice of the Rothschilds prevailed. They saw an opportunity for prodigious booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, burdened with debt to the financiers,...in place of a vigorous Republic sufficient unto herself. Therefore, they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to drive a wedge between the two parts of the Union....The rupture between the North and the South became inevitable; the masters of European finance employed all their forces to bring it about and turn it to their advantage."

Yep, and Lincoln tried the self financing Greenback and was assassinated...

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

1) Yes.
2) Yes. The actual quote is "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also so that."

Lincoln clearly went to war to preserve the union. Had the south not seceded he would have taken affirmative steps that could have eventually ended slavery. (Restricting slavery to the states where it already existed, refusing to enforce fugitive slave laws and seeking the same "compensated emancipation" plan that Ron Paul endorsed on Meet The Press.) But he would NOT have launched a war to end slavery.

3) Yes. I read about the Czar somewhere too.

Regards,

John M. Drake

"Went to war to preserve the Union" What kind of BS is that? Go look up the definition of union. Hat tip: Union is voluntary.

 

[jmdrake]

Then why bring up points about the North? Inuendo's don't fly around here. So, the North did the same things, but that doesn't matter! The South was evil for seceeding! That's what I got from your post. You could have done without the North bits, but you obviously included them for a reason.

I did bring it up. I mentioned racism in the North and Lincoln's own racism. I pointed out the fact that South Carolina wanted to secede under president Jackson when slavery clearly wasn't on the table but couldn't get other states to go along. I'm curious? What do you think of Andrew "I killed the national bank" Jackson?

Also I was specifically countering the argument that slavery had nothing to do with the civil war (clearly it did) and that the bankers backed the north (everybody knows they backed the south).

Let me ask you. What would you have done in 1861? Fight for the North or South? Curious.

Let's see. Given a choice between a group of people who's leaders clearly said they were at least in part motivated by their desire to protect the expansion of slavery and who were backed by our current enemies (the international bankers) versus a group that was pushing for protective tariffs to keep out cheap British manufactured goods I'd go with group number 2. The best argument I've heard for states rights is that if you don't like what's happening in one state you can "vote with your feet". Dred Scott tried that and it didn't work out too good. If you want to hate me for not going with "your side" on some conflict that neither of us were alive to see then fine. Hate my great-great grandfather too because he fought for the union and his family was freed before the civil war was over even though he lived in a border state (Kentucky). Also hate the white people from northern Alabama who seceded from Alabama and fought for the union. Their recruiting motto was "Don't fight for the rich plantation owners". A lot of people from the south took a lot of different positions. There are many ways to be a "proud southerner".

Of course in reality there are always more than two choices. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Ron Paul suggested on Meet the Press that compensated emancipation might have prevented the civil war. Lincoln actually tried doing this with the border states that didn't secede but congress wasn't willing pay as much as he was offering and the border states thought what he was offering was too low. But had it been offered earlier under different conditions it might have worked. If the money for all protective tariffs had been put into a compensated emancipation fund back when Andrew Jackson was president it may have defused the whole situation. Northern industry still would have been protected, the south would have seen some benefit from the tariff and the slaves would have been freed. Everyone would have been happy except the British and the international bankers but who cares about them anyway?

Regards,

John M. Drake