My plan is to only take half the state when I secede and leave half for the bootlickers .
This is some good stuff to rebut the mistaken cause of the civil war. Is there a source for the collection or does one have to go to each source listed to see the individual quotes??
Originally Posted by 1stvermont
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
We do not use Woodrow Wilson for a source around here .
True- but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
There is no spoon.
-Virginia/Kentucky resolutions 1798 http://billofrightsinstitute.org/fou...y-resolutions/
-James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions 1800 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found.../v1ch8s42.html
-Calhoun Ft Hill Address http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...-hill-address/
-ANEXPOSITION Of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, JudgeAbel P. Upshur
http://dallypost.com/tag/judge-abel-p-upshur/
-Nullification How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century Thomas E woods Regnery Publishing 2010
-TheSouth was Right James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy Pelican 2014
-Nullification Reclaiming consent of the Governed Clyde Wilson Shotwell Publishing Columbia South Carolina 2
-Lincolns Marxists Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy Pelican Press 2011
-The Real Lincoln Thomas J Dilorenzo Three Rivers press NY NY 2002
-Lincoln Unmasked what your not suppose to know about Dishonest Abe Thomas J Dilorenzo Three rivers Press Crown Forum 2006
-The Yankee Problem An American dilemma Clyde N Wilson Shotwell Publishing Columbia South Carolina 2016
-The Constitution Of The Confederate States Of America Explained A Clause By Clause Study Of The Souths Magna Carta Lochlainn Seabrook Sea Raven Press 2012
-Secession Acts of the Thirteen Confederate States http://www.civilwar.org/education/hi...ww.google.com/
-From Union to Empire essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition Clyde Wilson The Foundation for American Education Columbia South Carolina 2003
-Myths of American slavery Walter D Kennedy 2003 Pelican publishing company
may i also suggest
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512620-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Upper-South
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512619-Causes-of-Southern-Seccession-the-Cotton-States
Last edited by 1stvermont; 08-29-2017 at 04:29 AM.
War is always about money and never about morals.
The problem is that young men will not fight to the death to help make wealthy men wealthier, they will however, die for moral causes.
Hence, propaganda.
- Don't lie.
- Don't cheat.
- Don't steal.
- Don't kill.
- Don't commit adultery.
- Don't covet what your neighbor has, especially his wife.
- Honor your father and mother.
- Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
- Don’t use your Higher Power's name in vain, or anyone else's.
- Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
"For the love of money is the root of all evil..." -- I Timothy 6:10, KJV
isent it
""For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil...""
http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/6-10.htm
Not all in this world is money centered. Civil war was in part for sure.
I want to secede from the union. How can I do that??
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
get involved in local state politics or secession movements. I support texas and California exit movments, get the ball rolling.
HUUUUUUUH?????? You can't be serious. So, one can make the argument that secession occurred due to tariffs because the South wasn't exempt from every tariff? I mean, c'mon. So, when the North pays the bulk of the tariffs, your argument for why the South seceded was because the South paid far less in tariffs than the North?? That doesn't make ANY logical sense.
Dude, you need to fix your typos, AND understand economics. A tariff on imported textiles benefits Southern cotton producers. Hellooooooosecond you need to understand economics, yes NYC was the major exporter of goods [also why they almost left the union over tariffs] because the cotton textile factories were in the north, they were exsping southern goods. If the south was allowed to go, they would free trade dominate trade, the north could not allow this. But this should help you out sir. Ever wonder why the south always fought aginst northerns raising tearrifs?
You then spam me with quotes and fail to make an argument. The facts bear out that the bulk of the consumers were in the North (who pay the tariffs) and the bulk of the imports went into Northern ports, and the majority of the products with tariffs benefited Southern interests. Next.
allow me to clarify. Calm down, have a beer, you will see. See the underlined words.
"First, lets assume the south only paid 2% of tariffs, that still would not conclude Lincoln did not go to war because of tariffs, that would just conclude he did over a smaller amount of money."
This thread is not on causes of southern secession but what caused the war. tariffs did in part cause secession argument found here.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Cotton-States
economics. lets say all pizza is exported from NYC, but made in Alabama. the tax added is 10%. None in NYC makes pizza or contributes. But in Alabama those who make the pizza must earn more given the tax is added to the price of the buyer for his pizza. Pretty simple.
Tariffs
“The revenues of the General Government are almost entirely derived from duties on importations. It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government.”
-Florida causes of Secession
“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
As so often is the case in wars, money, in this case tariffs, had long been a point of conflict between the two sides. In 1824 the government tariff doubled. The south voting against the tariff being raised and the north voted for it, dividing the country along the 1860 civil war lines in 1824 over tariffs. Tariffs supplied the government 90% of it income and even gave a surplus to what the government needed. The majority was paid by the south given its inport/export agrarian economy. This the south thought was unconstitutional for the government to aim at a section or industry of the economy specifically for a tax.
“High protective tariffs reduced the price of cotton and effective imposed a tax between 10-20% while they raised the income of northern labor and the profits of northern manufacturers”
-Robert William Fogel The Rise and fall of American Slavery
"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole"
-Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860
Tariffs would be Raised again in 1828. Congress passed what southerners called the tariff of abominations to help northern industry against southern agrarian lifestyle. only 1 out of 105 southerners voted positive, yet the north voted for it [as they received free southern money that was used largely in the north] and it passed. This led South Carolina to first use a threat of secession. South Carolina Senator John Callhoun in the 1820's said of conflict between the north and south over tariffs “The great central interest , around which all others revolved” South Carolina argued they had states rights to reject unconstitutional federal ruling as a sovereign state, something Thomas Jefferson recommended. Over the tariff Mary Chestnut said South Carolina "heated themselves into a fever that only bloodletting could ever cure." The tax had been 15% and the south had been complaining for decades.
“It does not require extraordinary sagacity to precive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the seceding states to the union”
-Boston Transcript March 18 1861
“The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other....abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South.... ”
-Jefferson Davis Message to confederate Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution)
The Morrill Tariff Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, on a sectional vote, with nearly all northern representatives in support and nearly all southern representatives in opposition. With the election of Abraham Lincoln whose central campaign objective was to triple the tariff. Tariff was the “keystone” of the republican party “protection for home industry” was the campaign poster of the 1860 republican party. South Carolina did what it had done decades before, and seceded from the Union over the higher tariff rates soon to be imposed on the south by the north. It was not just the south, NYC mayor Fernando Wood wanted to make NYC a “free city” [free trade] and secede from the Union. The debate over tariffs and internal improvements was not just a debate over those items, but a debate over the nature of the federal government. Free trade was a vital aspect of southern agrarian interests. The CSA Constitution allowed for free trade. In Jefferson Davis inaugural speech in Montgomery Alabama he stated the following.
“An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade, which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union.”
“The south was being asked to pay to strengthen northern industry...the tariff would directly damage southern pocketbooks. This conflict played a important role in the division north vs south”
-Brevin Alexander Professor of History at Longwood University
“The tariff issue...exacerbated sectional tensions”
-James McPherson Battle cry of Freedom
Last edited by 1stvermont; 08-29-2017 at 03:49 PM.
LOL, your argument and "point" was centered around that South Carolina, after they secede, can claim land they gave up title to decades prior. That's hilarious. Using your argument, if you gift someone a car and sign over the title, you can "clawback" that gift after the fact. No, you can't. Because you gave up title to it. You no longer have claim to it. The title is no longer yours. Secession didn't void that. It wasn't an ongoing contract. It was settled in 1836.
Also, on the topic of tariffs, the North had double the population, meaning the consumers were in the North. So if the consumer pays the tariff, then Northern consumers would be hit harder than Southern consumers. So, your argument is bunk, but you keep pretending you have a point and just respond with: "Do you economics?" which is laughable because anytime someone, like you, replies with smarmy facetious "questions" and your arguments are devoid of citations and instead centered around "How you feel" about the Civil War than the actual legality of the ownership of Fort Sumter, a federal fort that was attacked by the South, then I know you have no point. Thanks for playing!
HAHAHAH!! Wow! Yeah, I'll repeat my, "HUUUUUH??" Because I addressed EXACTLY what you re-bolded and underlined, and you STILL don't get it. So, let's try again:
For starters, it's illegal for exports to be taxed in America. Not sure you knew that. We can only tax IMPORTS. Therefore, tariffs are only collected on IMPORTS, so no Southern cotton producer was "punished" by tariffs on American exports because it's ALWAYS been illegal to tax exports!! That's the funny part---you don't know exports are not taxed in America. So, you've probably gone through your life believing that Southern cotton producers were getting slapped with tariffs on their exported cotton. That's hilarious.
Now back to the original re-bolding and underlining. You cannot make a hypothetical argument that the South seceded because they paid a small portion of the tariffs and suggest the reason for secession was due to tariffs. You're essentially admitting the South was a bunch of crybabies---that even though the bulk of the tariffs came into Northern ports, and even though the North paid the bulk of the tariffs, that the South threw a fit because they paid some tariffs, and therefore secession was due to tariffs?????
I mean, if that's the case, then the South was full of cry babies, and would justify secession because they had to pay a dime of ANY tax. That's the problem with your argument---because if the South were exempt from EVERY tax, but had to pay a nominal $1 tax per state each year, you could argue secession was due to that $1 nominal tax. It's so absolutely ridiculous it's laughable.
If the South had half the population but paid 75% of the tariffs, like many here seem to think they did even though I posted stats saying otherwise (whereas no one has given me a link disputing my objective data), THEN you could argue the South seceded due to tariffs. But, since the South paid less than the majority of the tariffs, then secession due to tariffs seems laughable.
I mean, you can't argue the South seceded due to unfair tariffs and suggest any tariff is unfair for the South to pay.
So, unless the South were 100% exempt from tariffs, then you can blame secession on tariffs?? I guess the North should've known they had to pay for everything.
I do not care so much about the exact proportion of tariff fees paid, the South paid more per capita because they were more reliant on imports, they also lost even more money from protectionism when they were forced to buy more expensive Northern goods (while the North turned a profit), and they lost more money when their exports died from the trade wars the North started.
Ceding property to the Federal government while part of the union was irrelevant, the south had a right to take it's share of the joint property of the member states held by the federal government when it left, an island dominating the entrance to a strategically vital port in their territory was obviously part of that share.
You don't understand the nature of the pre-war union, it was a co-operative venture of the member states, they ceded the land because the Federation was in charge of defense against foreign powers, when they left the union they were once again responsible for their own defense and the property that had been granted to the union to defend them reverted to them.
Last edited by Swordsmyth; 08-29-2017 at 08:43 PM.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Plenty of mistakes above please calm down, have a beer than read my posts. a tax on imports or exports effects the producer of the product the same. You said
hypothetical argument that the South seceded because they paid a small portion of the tariffs and suggest the reason for secession was due to tariffs.
I am not sure if you know what thread you are on, this is not on causes of southern secession. This thread is on the causes of the civil war, tariffs played a major role in why Lincoln could not let the south go. So as I said, even assuming the south paid only 2% [ i did not say this was true, i said assuming it was true] that just meant Lincoln would not allow the south to go over a much smaller amount of money. What I did say was the south paid the majority on tariffs because they did. It matters not where the tariffs are collected, it matters whos production it effects, who picked up the bill, the agrarian south. That IS WHY THE NORTH AND SOUTH VOTED OPPOSITE ON THE ISSUE OF TARIFFS
“High protective tariffs reduced the price of cotton and effective imposed a tax between 10-20% while they raised the income of northern labor and the profits of northern manufacturers”
-Robert William Fogel The Rise and fall of American Slavery
"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole"
-Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860
So in fact you just admitted the south left over tariffs, something i would disagree with. It did play its role for sure.
Last edited by 1stvermont; 08-29-2017 at 06:38 PM.
You kinda missed my whole point... I want to secede from the Union and be my own "sovereignty". I don't want to be a part of ANY goonerment. They are all crooks. They are all thieves. They are all murderers. Doesn't matter fed, state or local. I want to secede from ALL of them. If a "state" entity can secede from the feds then I want to be able to secede from the state and locals...
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
Stats to back this up? You don't have any. You're parroting propaganda you've read from another Neo-Confederate. I posted the top tariffed goods that came into the United States. Your argument is the South paid more because they relied on imports more. Oh, really? The top tariffed products which made up the majority of the tariffs were textiles, tobacco, and sugar. So, your argument is the South bought more clothes, smoked more tobacco, and consumed more sugar than the North?? How much sense does THAT make? I guess Northern consumers just didn't buy clothes, smokes, or liked sweets? LOL
Yeah, they had about as much right seizing federal property as any other invader. Sorry, once you sign over title to a property, you forfeit claim. You don't possess perpetual ownership. Just because you want something and it's in your way doesn't mean you can start shooting at the people in it.Ceding property to the Federal government while part of the union was irrelevant, the south had a right to take it's share of the joint property of the member states held by the federal government when it left, an island dominating the entrance to a strategically vital port in their territory was obviously part of that share.
Plenty of mistakes?? You had no idea export taxes were illegal in the United States. You've gone through life with a flawed premise! LOL!
I KNOW you said the 2% tariff was a hypothetical---that's why I re-affirmed it!! You struggle with reading comprehension here. I keep saying "I KNOW you're hypothetically saying 2%" and you follow up with bolding the letters as if I didn't "get it" the first time. I did. YOU don't. That's WHY I said EVEN HYPOTHETICALLY if the South seceded due to them paying 2% of the tariffs, your argument cannot be, "Well, tariffs were a major cause of the secession." Because your argument is the South should've paid nothing?? Because if they paid a dime in taxes then you can say, "Well, they were justified in seceding!!!" On what planet could one argue THAT?
i see you admit defeat on the historical front so must build yourself a straw man to knock down. My argument is Lincoln would not let the south go because he wanted their money since they paid the majority of taxes. the south left in part, because they had to pay the majority of taxes and that money went to help the north. those are historical facts, deny as you may try.
we live in a fallen world, this is not eden, not sure what can be done.
The entire south tried to secede and was brutally murdered, all by yourself you won't do any better.
Like it or not if you want to live relatively free you need a group to do it with.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Liar. I posted stats on this already. 2/3rds of all imports came into New York. The bulk of the tariffs were on textiles, sugar, and tobacco. Show me where the South liked clothes, sugar, and tobacco more than the North did. Because for your argument to be correct, Southern consumers had to like consuming things more than the North did, which is absurd. Sorry, the tariff collection was in overdrive in New York and Boston ports, with New Orleans, the largest Southern port, being 1/10th the revenue of New York.
Historical fact is tariffs were paid mostly in the North, not the South, so whining over how "unfair" it was for the South due to tariffs is factually wrong and intellectually dishonest. Your strawman also sucked as it painted the South as a bunch of whiners that any tax at any level could be something Neo-Confederates could cling onto for arguments as to why they seceded. "I paid a penny, you paid 99 cents, therefore I get to leave because it's unfair I paid a penny."
Good to see you throw in the towel.
Last edited by Gaddafi Duck; 08-31-2017 at 02:39 PM.
Last I checked, the South fired the first shots onto a foreign country at Fort Sumter.
Who was violent, again?
Gnosiophobia- Fear of knowledge
Phronemophobia- fear of thinking
in my state taxes are collected in Montpelier, the capital, therefore those of us in southern vermont cannot complain of taxes since it is all collected in the capital, this is your logic. No historian would deny the south paid the bulk of the taxes, i showed you many times that the producer, not where it is collected, is the one who pays. That is why the south and north were divided on the issue. But i can see some want to be blinded.
well back to the topic of the thread, what caused the civil war.
From Union to Empire
I would argue the most important cause of the war was Lincolns successful transformation of the union into a modern nation/state.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511837-From-Union-to-Empire-The-Political-Effects-of-the-Civil-war
Lincolns Tariff War/ Dilorenzo
“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 in come 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 anin direct 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.”
-NewOrleans 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 unstatesman like 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.
Preserving the Union
“The war now prosecuted on part of the federal government is a war for the union”
-Secretary of war Simon Cameron August 8 1861
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
-Abraham Lincoln The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Letter to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862
One reason the north went to war was simply to preserve the union.Lincoln and the north wanted to preserve the nation and wanted to create a all powerful empire/nation controlled by Washington. An America that was split, was less powerful. Lincoln also did not want to be remembered as the president who allowed the nation to separate.
Did Lincoln go to war to end Slavery?
“The condition of slavery in the several states would remain just the same weather it [the rebellion] succeeds or fails”
-Secretary Seward to US Ambassador to France
“I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all.”
-Abraham Lincoln 1858
“The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud... undertaken for maintains and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery to which they have subjected the great body of people, both white and black”
-Northern Abolitionist Lysander Spooner
Lincoln and the north did not invade the south to end slavery. The north maintained slavery in states such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri, during and after the civil war. Lincoln had no problem with the upper south slave states in the union such as Virginia as he called for volunteers to attack the deep south to repress the rebellion. The 1860 the republican platform plank 4 said slavery was a state issue and they would not interfere. Lincoln said the states had the right to chose on slavery and he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed.
“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
Lincoln in his inaugural address said he supported the Corwin amendment.This amendment was first proposed in Dec 1860 and passed both the house and senate. It would have made slavery a constitutional right to states and permanently untouched by congress. Lincoln also said he supported the Fugitive slave act. During the war after the south left the union, the north controlled congress yet they did not end slavery. After the south succeeded the federal government decided it would not end slavery in the house on Feb 1861 and senate march 2 1861. On July 221861 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.”
“ I think as much of a rebel as I do an abolitionist”
-Union General Phil Kerney
In the early parts of the war Union soldiers and generals returned any runaway slaves back to their southern masters. General McClellan ordered runaway slaves back to masters in Virginia. When union general John Fremont emancipated slaves in union occupied Missouri, Lincoln recalled the orders and relived Fremont of his command. When union general David Hunter ordered general order number 11, declaring all slaves in SC/GA/FL to be “forever free” Lincoln revoked the proclamation and also ordered Hunter to disband the 1st South Carolina regiment made up of blacks hunter had enlisted. Late in 62 Lincoln supported in union held territory in VA and LA to continue slavery and allow the slave owners peacefully back into the union. Slavery led many especially in the old Whig party to “cling more tightly tthe union.”
“Howard county [MO] is true to the union” “our slaveholders think it is the sure bulwark of our slave property”
-Abeil Lenord a Whig party leader at onset of war
Had the war ended earlier, slavery would have not been touched.
Did the war Become about slavery After the Emancipation Proclamation
“My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition. So long as I am president . It shall be carried on for the sole purpose of restoring the union”
-Abraham Lincoln Aug 15 1864
The emancipation proclamation was a war measure and did not touch on slavery as an institution at all. Any southern state that wished to keep slavery, only had to rejoin the union with slavery intact. It actually did not free a single slave. After the emancipation proclamation northern troop desertion skyrocketed, and recruitment plummeted, indicating the average union solider was not fighting for slavery.
“Great pains have been taken, by the North, to make it appear to the world, that the war was a sort of moral, and religious crusade against slavery. Such was not the fact. The people of the North were,indeed, opposed to slavery, but merely because they thought it stood in the way of their struggle for empire”
-RaphaelSemmes 1868
Another reason for the proclamation was to make sure Europe did not enter the was for the south. If they could make the war look like it was over slavery, than Europe could not enter. In 1864 legislature in Texas said the Yankees were “lying to themselves and pretending to the rest of the world” that they were “fighting for the freedom of 4 millions happy and content slaves” but were really intent on“enslaving 8 million free-men.”
“It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting fort 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”,page 231
And the South took the bait. They actually thought it was about slavery and many southern men of power said it was about slavery so now, so many generations later we are seeing the public at large spouting quotes from those southern men and using them to "prove" the war was about slavery. As stated above, the war did not free 4 million, it enslaved 8 million (even more because all who followed from north and south became slaves in one form or another...)
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
Utterly, stupendously idiotic would be a better description.
Ft. Sumter was on Carolina land.Last I checked, the South fired the first shots onto a foreign country at Fort Sumter.
Who was violent, again?
But you do not need a state.
Ugh. This again?? Seriously???
South Carolina ceded the land to the federal government in 1836.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us