Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 63

Thread: Was the Civil War a “civil war”?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    If lower tariffs were so important to the deep South in 1861, they shouldn't have seceded and given the Republicans control of the Senate so the Morrill Tariff bill could be passed.

    They didn't have the votes. It was going to pass with or without them.



    The Declarations of Secession's cited slavery a lot more than tariffs.

    Not really. From Declaration of the Causes of Secession, Georgia:


    The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States.... They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

    ...After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

    All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 05-14-2016 at 01:48 PM. Reason: spelling; "or" not "our"
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    Those who want freer trade with their neighbors. BTW, states don't have rights, people do.
    states rights

    About 61,400,000 results

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...74.cdm998_S4kQ



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    They didn't have the votes. It was going to pass with or without them.

    ...
    It wouldn't have even been put to a vote.

    The Morrill bill was sent on to the Senate. However, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and so the bill was bottled up in the Finance Committee, chaired by Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia
    ...
    However, in December 1860 and January 1861, seven southern states declared secession, and their low-tariff Senators withdrew. Republicans took control of the Senate in February, and Hunter lost his hold on the Finance Committee.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morril...#Senate_action

    Not really. From Declaration of the Causes of Secession, Georgia:


    These charts show how many words were devoted to the issues raised in each state's Declaration as a percentage of the whole. "Context" refers to procedural language and/or historical exposition that is not connected to a specific argument.
    http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/

    Then there's the "Corner Stone" Speech" given by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
    Last edited by robert68; 05-14-2016 at 04:27 PM.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    states rights

    About 61,400,000 results

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...74.cdm998_S4kQ
    You're supposed to be a libertarian and anarchist. Further, Jefferson Davis the President of the Confederacy was far from either.
    Last edited by robert68; 05-14-2016 at 04:30 PM.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    It wouldn't have even been put to a vote.
    I am talking about after the seating of the next Senate session. The Dissident Democrats were more likely abandon their majority than were the Republicans on the tariff issue, as evidenced by the number of Democrats who voted for the same bill in the house.

    Abe Lincoln was a lifelong protectionist who strongly favored such for the (with protections) weak manufacturing sectors. His 1860 campaign was strongly tied to the now aggressive tariff proposals by the manufacturing north.

    Pennsylvania was considered the swing state in the 1860 election. Lincoln was not likely to win without their support, hence he said items such as: "...adequate protection can be extended to the coal and iron of Pennsylvania, the corn of Illinois and the ‘reapers of Chicago."

    Lincoln actually suggested that iron could be made more cheaply in the US than England. If that were true, then why in the world does one need protection? The kicker is that Lincoln wants a tariff for items that he suggests are made more cheaply in the US. He said, "I have long thought that if there be any artifice of necessity which can be produced at home with as little or nearly the same labor as abroad, it would be better to protect that article."

    Lincoln then acknowledges his lack of knowledge on the subject. He says, "I confess I do not understand the precise provisions of this bill,..." (source for quotes below).








    Source: Speech at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Feb. 15, 1861
    http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/...;view=fulltext
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post

    These charts show how many words were devoted to the issues raised in each state's Declaration as a percentage of the whole.

    You can't simply count words and then calculate a percentage:

    1. A form of the word "slave" appears 35 times in the 3300+ word Georgia document. If you calculate that percentage, then it's about 1%.

    2. The appearance of the word "slave" is related to the other issues. Note that this passage has a form of the word "slave" four times, but it is speaking of the tariff.

    But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

    All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.




    Either way, I have already acknowledged that the greed of the South was pivotal. If there are no slaves, then Lincoln has no platform and no excuse for any aggression.

    People can argue the percentages, but your charts actually support the argument that the war was not just "about slavery." Many revisionists all but ignore the other economic issues of which slavery was a part, especially the central role of protectionism.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I am talking about after the seating of the next Senate session. The Dissident Democrats were more likely abandon their majority than were the Republicans on the tariff issue, as evidenced by the number of Democrats who voted for the same bill in the house.
    The fact only one Democrat Senator (William Bigler of Pennsylvania) voted for it, indicates otherwise.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    The fact only one Democrat Senator (William Bigler of Pennsylvania) voted for it, indicates otherwise.
    It indicates what I said. No Republican abandoned his party on this vote. One Democrat abandoned his party to join the Republicans. And, of course, the vote was from Pennsylvania, the pivotal state that strongly help secure Lincoln's election.

    Some of the abstaining Democrats (many more than the Republicans) probably knew they did not have the votes anyway. I would bet that the other abstaining Democrats were probably for it, but shrewdly withdrew. Perhaps they abstained for political expedience, as many do that today.

    Either way, the general sentiment had shifted back to high protections. It was only a matter of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  11. #39
    Newspaper excerpts from the period:



    “We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute.” -- Cincinnati Daily Press 11-21-60

    “There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.” -- NY Times 3-21-61


    “Let the South adopt the free-trade system [and the North’s] commerce must be reduced to less than half what it is now…Our labor could not compete…with the labor of Europe [and] a large portion of our shipping interest would pass into the hands of the South.” -- Daily Chicago Times, 12-10-60


    “The mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed of the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade…" -- Boston Transcript 3-18-61
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    You're supposed to be a libertarian and anarchist. Further, Jefferson Davis the President of the Confederacy was far from either.
    I am, so what, what's the relevance? We're having a conversation about US history. This thread was started from an article on LRC. <shrug>



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    It indicates what I said. No Republican abandoned his party on this vote. One Democrat abandoned his party to join the Republicans. And, of course, the vote was from Pennsylvania, the pivotal state that strongly help secure Lincoln's election.
    No it doesn't. You said "as evidenced by the number of Democrats who voted for the same bill in the house." When in fact only one Senate Democrat supported it, a northern Democrat. The rest IMO is your believing what you want to believe.

    Some of the abstaining Democrats (many more than the Republicans) probably knew they did not have the votes anyway. I would bet that the other abstaining Democrats were probably for it, but shrewdly withdrew. Perhaps they abstained for political expedience, as many do that today.

    Either way, the general sentiment had shifted back to high protections. It was only a matter of time.
    Last edited by robert68; 05-15-2016 at 07:10 AM.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    I am, so what, what's the relevance? We're having a conversation about US history. This thread was started from an article on LRC. <shrug>
    Libertarian principle recognizes individual rights, not state rights. <shrug>

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    Libertarian principle recognizes individual rights, not state rights. <shrug>
    Looking around, we don't really seem to be living in "libertarian world", quite yet.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Looking around, we don't really seem to be living in "libertarian world", quite yet.
    Irrelevant. Go tell some other libertarians that the right of a state trumps the right of individuals.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    Irrelevant. Go tell some other libertarians that the right of a state trumps the right of individuals.
    Totally relevant. I said no such thing. (and I'm pretty sure you know and completely understand that.)

    I'll bet I was libertarian before you were even born. You're just singing to the preacher, badly.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Totally relevant. I said no such thing. (and I'm pretty sure you know and completely understand that.)
    You didn't have to use those exact words and you should know and completely understand that.

    You wrote "The South was right on states rights and secession " and after I responded that "states don't have rights", you posted the following:

    states rights

    About 61,400,000 results

    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...74.cdm998_S4kQ
    Since blacks had no rights in the Confederacy and Confederate Constitution, you put the right to enslave them over their right to liberty.
    1+1+2. Principle libertarians don't do that.

    I'll bet I was libertarian before you were even born.
    Then you'd lose your money and are slow learner. I'm done with this.
    Last edited by robert68; 05-15-2016 at 05:17 PM.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    You didn't have to use those exact words and you should know and completely understand that.

    You wrote "The South was right on states rights and secession " and after I responded that "states don't have rights", you posted the following:
    [B]


    Since blacks had no rights in the Confederacy and Confederate Constitution, you put the right to enslave them over their right to liberty.
    1+1+2. Principle libertarians don't do that.



    Then you'd lose your money and are slow learner. I done with this.
    Very wise decision, you're batting way out of your league.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Very wise decision, you're batting way out of your league.
    LOL. Says a neo-Confederate “anarchist libertarian”.
    Last edited by robert68; 05-16-2016 at 07:16 AM.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    LOL. Says a neo-Confederate “anarchist libertarian”.
    Q: What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

    A:
    Twenty years.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    No it doesn't. You said "as evidenced by the number of Democrats who voted for the same bill in the house." When in fact only one Senate Democrat supported it, a northern Democrat. The rest IMO is your believing what you want to believe.


    I am speaking of proportion, not raw numbers. The tariff was a more a sectional issue for Democrats than Republicans.

    Hunter first tabled the bill because he wanted to propose his own version of the house bill for his senate colleagues. He wanted more deliberate consideration. This was not really possible because the first senate session was ending shortly after the house bill passed. The second senate session would not resume until after the fall elections. Since there was a long gap between sessions at this time (almost six months), you can't necessarily consider Hunter's first suspension of the bill as "filibuster." In fact, there were many Democrats who urged a vote on the bill.

    The bill was later resurrected by Pennsylvania's Cameron immediately after Lincoln's election victory. The atmosphere was now much different because the Republican senate election wins and shift of power. That made if more dire for Hunter, along with Pennsylvania's conditional support of the tariff tied with their now connection to the Republican Party. The momentum had greatly shifted in six months, with the north and south division becoming even more apparent. It's no accident that South Carolina issued their secession document only two weeks after Cameron's hasty motion to reintroduce the bill.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I am speaking of proportion, not raw numbers. The tariff was a more a sectional issue for Democrats than Republicans.

    Hunter first tabled the bill because he wanted to propose his own version of the house bill for his senate colleagues. He wanted more deliberate consideration. This was not really possible because the first senate session was ending shortly after the house bill passed. The second senate session would not resume until after the fall elections. Since there was a long gap between sessions at this time (almost six months), you can't necessarily consider Hunter's first suspension of the bill as "filibuster." In fact, there were many Democrats who urged a vote on the bill.

    The bill was later resurrected by Pennsylvania's Cameron immediately after Lincoln's election victory. The atmosphere was now much different because the Republican senate election wins and shift of power. That made if more dire for Hunter, along with Pennsylvania's conditional support of the tariff tied with their now connection to the Republican Party. The momentum had greatly shifted in six months, with the north and south division becoming even more apparent. It's no accident that South Carolina issued their secession document only two weeks after Cameron's hasty motion to reintroduce the bill.
    South Carolina issued its declaration to secede on December 24, 1860, before Lincoln's election, and there's not a single word in it about tariffs. It's "Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" are about slavery or slavery related.
    http://www.civilwar.org/education/hi...nofcauses.html
    Last edited by robert68; 05-23-2016 at 01:57 AM.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    South Carolina issued its declaration to secede on December 24, 1860, before Lincoln's election,
    No, Lincoln was elected November 1860.


    ...and there's not a single word in it about tariffs. It's "Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" are about slavery or slavery related.
    Related? By that logic I could say the constitutional issues to which the document alludes are related to tariffs.




    ************************************************** *



    There are numerous references to the tariff and northern taxation before, during, and after the South Carolina Secession Convention. Here are excerpts from just one of those references, the South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate:

    And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit,...

    ***

    For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States, have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue - to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

    ***

    Yet this British policy has been fully realized towards the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three- fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated. In 1740, there were five ship-yards in South Carolina, to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779, there were built in these yards, twenty-five square rigged vessels, besides a great number of sloops and schooners, to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.

    ***

    It cannot be believed, that our ancestors would have assented to any union whatever with the people of the North, if the feelings and opinions now existing amongst them, had existed when the Constitution was framed. There was then no Tariff...

    ***

    To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must first be abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North, to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.

    This is one single source. There are numerous sources. I acknowledged slavery as a reason. Are you telling me that the tariff or no other issues were relevant?

    Source: South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate
    http://history.furman.edu/benson/docs/scdebate3.htm
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  27. #53
    There was also considerable debate on how the causes should be cited. One issue was the presentation to other southern states (for support) versus presentation to the world.

    Judge Wardlaw, for just one example, stated: "My objections to the other Address is that it deals too much with the Fugitive Slave Law and upon Personal Liberty Bills. It is too much like special pleading."


    The documents and debates vary among the other seceding states. Note that Georgia, for example, actually includes the tariff issue in its final document.

    Denying that the secessionists and politicians of the day did not debate and argue about the tariff as cause is like saying oil had nothing to do with the Iraqi invasion.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I am speaking of proportion, not raw numbers. The tariff was a more a sectional issue for Democrats than Republicans.

    Hunter first tabled the bill because he wanted to propose his own version of the house bill for his senate colleagues. He wanted more deliberate consideration. This was not really possible because the first senate session was ending shortly after the house bill passed. The second senate session would not resume until after the fall elections. Since there was a long gap between sessions at this time (almost six months), you can't necessarily consider Hunter's first suspension of the bill as "filibuster." In fact, there were many Democrats who urged a vote on the bill.

    The bill was later resurrected by Pennsylvania's Cameron immediately after Lincoln's election victory. The atmosphere was now much different because the Republican senate election wins and shift of power. That made if more dire for Hunter, along with Pennsylvania's conditional support of the tariff tied with their now connection to the Republican Party. The momentum had greatly shifted in six months, with the north and south division becoming even more apparent. It's no accident that South Carolina issued their secession document only two weeks after Cameron's hasty motion to reintroduce the bill.
    How about backing up your narrative with a source.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    No, Lincoln was elected November 1860.

    Related? By that logic I could say the constitutional issues to which the document alludes are related to tariffs.
    References to the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution are "slavery related" references, of which there are many.

    There are numerous references to the tariff and northern taxation before, during, and after the South Carolina Secession Convention.
    But not a single word about tariffs in their Secession Declaration.

    Here are excerpts from just one of those references, the South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate:

    This is one single source. There are numerous sources. I acknowledged slavery as a reason. Are you telling me that the tariff or no other issues were relevant?
    Based on the secession declarations of most of the seceding states, and the Cornerstone speech, it's importance is not comparable to the slavery issue, IMO. Have you read any of the Cornerstone speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens I earlier provided a link for? He couldn't have stated it more clear. The most memorable line is below:
    Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]
    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...rstone-speech/

    ----------------------------------
    Overview
    --------
    Source: South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate
    http://history.furman.edu/benson/docs/scdebate3.htm
    Last edited by robert68; 05-23-2016 at 05:39 PM.

  30. #56
    [QUOTE=robert68;6223153]
    But not a single word about tariffs in their Secession Declaration.

    The secession documents were more practical documents to gain support from fellow southern states. One of the debates focused on which issues to emphasize. It was decided to focus on support and cohesion from other southern states rather than the world.

    The total focus on slavery today ignores the fact that Lincoln did not care about slavery where it already existed. Lincoln said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere 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."

    Lincoln is basically agreeing with South Carolina and its document. He changes tactics when he realizes that he will not get world support on economic issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post

    Have you read any of the Cornerstone speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens I earlier provided a link for? He couldn't have stated it more clear. The most memorable line is below:

    Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]


    Yes, I am well aware of what Stephens said. Not much different than Lincoln's view of blacks:

    "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

    “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

    "And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

    "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere 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.”

    “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  33. #58
    Again, the question remains. If Lincoln had no intent to "interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists," then why did he take action to stop secession?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post
    How about backing up your narrative with a source.
    Source on what? A lot of this is basic facts you should know before discussing this. For example, you said that Lincoln was elected after the South Carolina secession document was issued. The opposite is true. That simple fundamental is central to a discussion on understanding the timing of secession. I am not going to cite facts like that.
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 05-23-2016 at 07:24 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Again, the question remains. If Lincoln had no intent to "interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists," then why did he take action to stop secession?
    I don't defend Lincoln, both sides were wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Source on what? A lot of this is basic facts you should know before discussing this. For example, you said that Lincoln was elected after the South Carolina secession document was issued. The opposite is true. That simple fundamental is central to a discussion on understanding the timing of secession. I am not going to cite facts like that.
    Up until now you’ve been respectful, and it’s been kind of refreshing compared to some others in this forum, but you just changed that.

    Source on what?
    To all of your baseless assertions in this entire exchange, which I've let go up until today.

    A lot of this is basic facts you should know before discussing this.
    Yea, in fantasy land.
    For example, you said that Lincoln was elected after the South Carolina secession document was issued. The opposite is true. That simple fundamental is central to a discussion on understanding the timing of secession. I am not going to cite facts like that.
    LOL, it wasn't central to the discussion in the least. I was barely awake when I read it.

    I am not going to cite facts like that.
    LOL, because the facts aren’t on your side!!!!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •