Because I am buried in Midterm essays–yet again–in my Summer online courses, I don’t have time to make a proper entry. But since the topic has come up in the comments, I figured this is an excellent time to show a nice video on the relationship between slavery and secession. This was what Larry Wilmore and Jon Stewart of The Daily Show came up with back in 2010 during the sesquicentennial of South Carolina’s secession. Enjoy!
Weblog of Dr Kenneth Owen
Tanah Haney, Harpist
Just another WordPress.com site
Of history, warfare, leadership, and alcohol
The thoughts of a (slighty eccentric & crazy) Canadian who happens to be obsessed with Abraham Lincoln, General William Tecumseh Sherman & the Civil War
"Partial quotes, contextual deception, & half-truths are like pot-holes on the path of knowledge."-- Civil War Talk user Bee, March 28, 2016
Musings on, and sometimes in, the Irish language
Speaker and author, often on history. Plus stage, screen, audio...
Reflections on learning about the Civil War--Copyright 2020
Reflections of a High School History Teacher and Civil War Historian
Reflections on the South in Popular Culture
Exploring Music, Film, Games, and Literature from and about the Civil War.
Author of "The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin" and "The Enigma of Clarence Thomas"
Reading, Thinking, and Blogging about History
Writer. Historian.
making sense of the news one week at a time
A blog about American History, and the development of a great Nation
Southern Girl, Liberal Heart
history...in a few words
African Americans in the 19th Century: Slavery, Resistance, Abolition, the Civil War, Emancipation, Reconstruction, and the Nadir
Just another WordPress.com site
Military History
Civil War Book of Days
Striving to create a positive research environment that will stimulate and enrich a variety of research undertakings.
Random thoughts of a Dad and Teacher
History and the Mountains
histories of unconventional southerners
The True Blue Federalist 
The clip is hilarious. Imagine what would have happened if a bunch of people flying flags celebrating Nat Turner’s Rebellion showed up in Lexington over the weekend. I’m pretty sure violence would have broken out once Goad flipped on Eddie Murphy’s reggae song, “Kill the White People.”
It’s heritage, not history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a wicked little piece. This is the clip I show in my HST 202 course. I warn them that Larry uses a bad word but it gets bleeped out. I’m looking forward to Wilmore’s new show.
LikeLike
It is always interesting to see people claim slavery had nothing to do with secession when the people who seceded stated that the issue of slavery was the reason for secession. It always comes back to slavery. Fortunately, we are changing this via the use of the primary sources in history education. As more and more people become acquainted with how historians work they are finding out what the people of the past said. It is a lot like Charles Dew stated in his book.
LikeLike
Exactly. For years and years, the Lost Causers could worm their way around the secession convention documents (in their minds, anyway), but Dew seals the deal. It kills me I only just found it.
LikeLike
I can’t find it anymore. Do you still have the clip? I want to share it with others also.
LikeLike
Kelly, I only just now saw your Comment! Sorry.
Here it is:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/wlytvw/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-south-s-secession-commemoration
LikeLike
Chris,
per your request—
******************************
Jimmy,
You are taking a narrow view of the secession documents. If you take them for what they are, they are nothing more than a list of grievances against the Federal government. I suggest you read each and every declaration and list these grievances to fully understand exactly what they are.
Even so if secession was secession was only about slavery, so what? Slavery was a legal institution in the United States, and these Southern states were part of that country. Slavery was not the cause of the war. This has nothing to do with what bothers me. It does appear that it bothers you because you can’t find the document that proves otherwise. What did you expect these states to say we are seceeding because we are seceeding? Does that make sense really?????
I am not going to go into what each individual soldier fought for, if slavery is the reason your ancestors fought then so be it. What side were they on?
Let’s look at a few facts shall we? First we agree that secession was not addressed in the Constitution, and we all agree that sovereign can mean independent. Therefore the Southern States believed that had a right to withdraw from the Federal government. So with that behind us there is no need to revisit those issues. It is agreed that the war started at Fort Sumter with Major Anderson leaving Moultrie to occupy Sumter. Where are the freed slaves? For now we shall say the Confederates fired on Sumter and Anderson surrendered that fort, where are the enslaved people? There are none either way. In all of the communications I have read about the issue at Fort Sumter slavery was not mentioned the first time. Now the firing at Fort Sumter caused the war, why did the Confederates fire on this fort. It was because Lincoln sent an invasion fleet to Charleston and Pensacola. So now we see the Confederacy fired on an invasion fleet. Where are the slaves? Again there are none. This is not my opinion these are historical fact.
I have also posted two US acts of Congress to this page you simply overlook them because they do not fit your idea of what the war was about. One gives the South a chance to come back under the Federal and keep their slaves; the other clearly states the war IS NOT about slavery. Again these are historical facts; to say otherwise is not being honest.
LikeLike
George, at this moment I’m grading exams so I don’t have time to engage your argument fully. But I will say briefly that Lincoln did not launch an invasion fleet to Charleston Harbor. The Star of the West was an unarmed transport. It had a navy escort, but that escort was instructed to wait in the offing, and not attempt to enter the harbor. Lincoln was very careful in this. He even informed the governor of South Carolina that this was happening. But Jeff Davis could not allow the resupply of the last U.S. fort in Confederate waters. The rest of the un-seceded South (especially Virginia) was watching, wondering just how serious this new Confederacy was about secession, and he couldn’t look irresolute. So he ordered the fort taken before the Star could arrive.
So, Lincoln maneuvered Davis into firing the first shot. Now the Union could look like the aggrieved party. If you want to be mad at Lincoln for being more clever than Davis, that’s fine. But those are the facts. This is what actually happened.
And there were no freed slaves because freeing slaves was not a Union goal–yet.
LikeLike
I think you are confusing the Star of the West with the smaller merchant ships Lincoln ordered to relieve Anderson with fresh food and supplies.. Buchannon ordered the Star of the West earlier to bring supplies to Sumter. it was deterred by Citadel cadets. Other than that you are right on. Lincoln sent a naval escort to assist only if Confederates did not allow the merchant ships to resupply Anderson at Sumter.
LikeLike
Oh! Well, thanks for the correction. I thought I read that in McPherson, but I just moved and don’t have all my books at hand (it’s like being blind). A quick search through Freehling doesn’t make clear the actual transports Lincoln sent. I don’t have my CD of primary sources available, either.
I defer, sir.
LikeLike
I looked for the names of the ships Lincoln sent, but I couldn’t find them in a cursory search. I don’t have the time to dedicate for thorough search either. All I know is that he sent merchant vessels, smaller in size to the “Star.” I think the Star was sent to Texas after Ft. Sumter. Perhaps Andy Hall can elaborate on that.
LikeLike
Well isn’t that just amazing that you can’t find anything. on the ships Lincoln sent. So a more correct statement is simply “I just don’t know” right?
LikeLike
You have issues with reading comprehension.
LikeLike
Yes as do you.
LikeLike
I like an admission that you are wrong. Of course you will not get that from Dick or do-do head Baker.
LikeLike
Wasn’t the Star of the west ordered by Buchanan? Wasn’t it carrying 300 re-enforcements for Sumter?
Come on boys let’s see how much you know.
LikeLike
Learn to read George. Already covered that.
LikeLike
learn to read Baker. You failed to mention the 300 re-enforcements. I told you once you are not the shapest tack in the pack. Now I am wondering iif you are even in the pack.
LikeLike
Perhaps you should provide the citation for what you are arguing.
LikeLike
Yes, Star of the West was subsequently sent to Indianola (near present-day Port Lavaca) to pick up Federal troops being evacuated from Texas. While there she was captured by Confederate forces and subsequently taken to New Orleans.
LikeLike
Thank you, Andy.
LikeLike
I disagree about the secession part. You keep jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the facts. The Constitution was created in a certain way and meant to be a permanent union of the states. Secession is not in it because secession was not allowed. It is also not a compact between states. It is a permanent union. Now, the slave owners reached a conclusion that they could not stay in the Union because their labor system was under attack by economic forces they could not control as well as the fact it was not in keeping with the ideas brought forth in the American Revolution. They chose the concept of secession which ruined them.
As for the Sumter issue you’re only arguing tired, retread Lost Cause garbage. Anderson did not have to do anything rebels and secessionist trash wanted him to do. He was an officer in the United States Army and no authority in South Carolina could order him about. He had every right and authority to move his troops anywhere he wanted on US property which is what Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter were. If the traitors didn’t like it, then that’s just too damn bad.
Your statement about slaves at Sumter is just preposterous. It is pure ignorance. You are looking to make direct connections which don’t hold up. Again, let the people of the South use their own words to explain what they were doing. You find an overwhelming amount of them. You just ignore them because they prove you dead wrong. Again, start with the secession conventions.
Lincoln did not send an invasion fleet. That is just more of the Lost Cause victim garbage. He would have been justified in doing so anyway. Again, more trash that has been thoroughly ridiculed.
I went through the two documents. I explained what they really showed. Is historical context beyond your thought process?
LikeLike
Well [Jimmy —Admin],
You are beyond any help. The Constitution does not address secession at all, hence S.P. Chase’s decisioion in Texas vs White. You are wrong.
Sumter???? [Edit —Admin]what are you talking about you [poopy head —Admin].
If you are gonna claim slavery is the issue you should be able to make a direct connection,. Like always you fail to do so.
How do you know the makeup of the fleet? Post your sources and the names of the ships. Put up mouth.
Why should I take youur [poopy opinion —Admin]? I can clearly read “the war is not about slavery.” That is a direct connection. You are ignorant beyond belief.
LikeLike
That’s not the way it works, George. You have made a rather outrageous claim (“It was because Lincoln sent an invasion fleet to Charleston and Pensacola. So now we see the Confederacy fired on an invasion fleet”). It is up to you to prove this claim through evidence. You don’t get to make a claim like this and then tell us we’re the ones who have to fact-check it.
LikeLike
Good luck getting an answer. Georgie likes to make claims and then tell people to “Prove him wrong.” His blog is full of such posts. His more recent ones, “Lincoln’s Slave” proved to be a big embarrassment to him. Predictably, this didn’t change his demeanor. He next decided that Lincoln owned indentured servants. I pointed out this was wrong as well, he decided to block me.
LikeLike
Right and when I provide this through evidence. then what? Will you admit that you are wrong or will you just try a to spin the facts?
LikeLike
“Prove” what?
LikeLike
are you seriouys ? You don’t know what we have been discussing?????
LikeLike
Back up your claims with some facts once in a while, why don’t you? The only thing you do is make stupid and ignorant claims while ignoring all the facts that you don’t like. [Edit] [C]an’t [edit]…you [edit] even read the documents that the people wrote in 1860/61 stating repeatedly why they were seceding?
As usual George, the only thing you’ve done with this last post is prove you are incapable of learning. If I want an exercise in selective memory and history I can go to your website where the Lost Cause is on full display. You want a direct connection between slavery and the fucking CW? READ THE [@#$%&] DOCUMENTS! [Edit]
Instead we get another post from George whining that secession is not mentioned in the Constitution. Is divorce mentioned in the wedding vows? You know why it isn’t in there, but the part about until death do us part is is? Because it is meant to be forever. The people that wrote the [edit] Constitution meant for it to be forever. They [edit] told us that. You don’t get that part because you don’t like it. Well tough [luck]. You don’t get a choice in the matter.
[Edit] In education we stress that people learn at different levels throughout their lives. You are living proof that there is an exception to that theory. Some people don’t learn at all throughout their lives because they choose not to. That is willful ignorance. We need to put your picture and the rest of the neo-confederates in that section to illustrate the point.
[Insert fling at intellegence here —Admin]
LikeLike
Man the edits just take out so much of the wonderful insults I created for George. The last one was pretty good. I will have to start getting more creative because I’m sure George will just reply with the usual whine.
Oh, you missed one, Chris. You really should let them stand on their not-very-literary merit so George gets the entire point.
LikeLike
I know, I know; I did it to his also.
LikeLiked by 1 person
should be wonder
LikeLike
Thanks for bring this clip to my attention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looks like George is forgetting something important to the discussion about Ft. Sumter. It was US property, not Confederate of South Carolina’s. The US had every single right to do whatever they wanted with Sumter and the traitors had no rights whatsoever to stop the US. But George believes in the Lost Cause view of the conflict and of course the truth is not something that he wants to use to prove his point on Ft. Sumter.
Keep going down the rabbit hole, George.
LikeLike
He’d like to get us tangled in the details of Sumter–as if that invalidates the big picture.
LikeLike
Maybe Sumter belonged to the US maybe not. The important thing is Anderson broke a peace agreement and started the war.
LikeLike
Prove it. Show your evidence for that assertion.
LikeLike
If I show proof it may or may not be here. See Chris the problem is that you have let Dick and Baker drag your blog into the sewres. You may edit out a few words but the intended meaning is still there. So why should I post anything civil and factual here, when I can just post it to Cold southern Steel at http://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/
Think about it.
LikeLike
You give as good as you get, George. I figured your skin was a little thicker.
As far as you showing your proof, that’s up to you. You are the one making the assertions. I don’t understand coming to this site if you are going to play coy just when it comes time to show evidence.
LikeLike
This is fact. I canm here thinking that we could have a civil exchange of facts and ideas. I didn’t start the insults here. Remember how you were treated at Cold Southern Steel — you were welcomed and your posts were approved until you became insulting and only after several warnings were you not approved.
So my question again is why should I post any facts here when i can get by with just exchanging insults. It is your blog you set the standards.
LikeLike
I have not insulted you, George.
LikeLike
Again maybe and maybe not. The fact of the matter is you did nothing about Dick’s and Baker’s remarks.
To a great extent I have exposed your website for what it is just another bigoted blog.
Mission accompilished. 🙂
And folks if you would like to exchange historical facts I invite you to
Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education at http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
Or my blog Cold Southern Steel at
http://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/
Have a Dixie Day.
LikeLike
Maybe? What is that? You ignore the documents again that prove Ft. Sumter was US property and say maybe? There is no maybe to it. Why don’t you stick to the facts and stop trying to insinuate something that is not true with a maybe? Now do like Chris says and show some proof.
Here is a good start. http://civilwarhome.com/doubledaysumter.html
LikeLike
Is this how you do it [Edit]??? You are so stupid and biased you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Hiow do we penetrate that stupid thick block you call a head and get some real facts in there. Why don’t you actually try and read a historical document?
LikeLike
The documents are very, very clear, George. The Declarations and Ordinances leave no doubt that the Cotton States left the Union because they were afraid of losing slavery. Perhaps you would like to show us something we’ve missed?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only party true and any rate slavery WAS NOT the cause of the wae. You have failed to prove that point
LikeLike
OK, George–I’ll play a round with you. Here is some proof:
How about we start with South Carolina, since they started all the craziness? They were pretty clear. Here’s South Carolina’s “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union“:
There: South Carolina is stating in very clear terms that the reason for it leaving the Union was the North’s hostility toward slavery. That, my friend, is what we in the trade call “proof.”
Your turn.
LikeLike
Oh good grief the DoS have nothing to do with the war. There are documents and events that trump these docs. all day long. I have posted two passed by the US Congress.
LikeLike
Really? So, you think that SC’s “Declaration of Causes” has nothing to do with secession? Because that’s the topic here–that’s what you said earlier: that secession had little or nothing to do with slavery.
I am with child to see your trump cards here–especially the two passed by Congress.
LikeLike
I said war. Please take you time to read.
“that’s what you said earlier: that secession had little or nothing to do with slavery.”
Please post that exact passage.
I know you are trying to turn the tables on me. Won’t happen.
LikeLike
No, I don’t play word games, George. I’m into logic and argument. Here are your words:
So, I made the obvious connection: that without slavery, there’s no secession; without secession, there’s no war to restore the Union. That seems a very clear path based on this chain of events. What is your objection?
LikeLike
Are you going to post the exact quotation where I said slavery had nothing to do with secession or not. Shall you be noted as a person who doesn’t tell the truth???
Again slavery was not the cause of the war. Your porblem is making all these connections.
LikeLike
Here’s the entire quote:
I really don’t understand, George. Are you saying that my connecting of the dots here is wrong? I have shown that slavery caused SC to secede. Are you saying you need proof now that that secession caused the war? That is self-evident. That’s why it’s called a “civil war.”
LikeLike
Chris I do not see hwere I said slavery had nothing to do with secession. Please narrow it down to the exact sentence. Yes your problem with connecting the dots is you skip what doen’t support your agenda.
LikeLike
“Even so if secession…was only about slavery, so what? Slavery was a legal institution in the United States, and these Southern states were part of that country. Slavery was not the cause of the war.”
I took that to mean that slavery did not cause the war. And my point is that it caused secession, which certainly caused the war. But if you want a quick, succinct summary of events to refer to, look no further than Mike’s comment:
That’s pretty much it.
LikeLike
Gee it looks to me like that says slavery was not the cause of the war. Am I correct?
Why do you damage your credibility in that manner? What else have you not read correctly???
BTW Indian raids was also a cause of secession.
LikeLike
One more time. Here’s Mike’s wrap-up of events.
So, no, George, you are not correct. Slavery was indeed the ultimate cause of the war.
And, to let you know, I’m very much not interested in you repeating yourself. If you don’t have any new argument or new observation–if you are merely going to repeat what you’ve already said–then just say “I respectfully disagree” and we can go our separate ways.
LikeLike
Chris,
No I am correct. I did not say that slavery was not a cause of the war. It is right there you did your best and failed. No harm in trying.
I do not see in Mikes post anywhere where he says slavery is the cause of the war. Cn you point that out???
LikeLike
Well, I thought it obvious, but if it’s not, slip it in there like this:
(2) SC and the slave states of the Deep South rejected Lincoln’s election as a direct attack on slavery, and so SC and other states declared secession, issued ordinances, and began forming the CSA.
There. Now you have the chain of events.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly SECESSION not war. Keep trying.
LikeLike
Wow. I don’t know how clear to make it. I believe I’ve said it 8 million times.
Secession. Caused. the War.
I am officially glaring down the rabbit hole I was warned about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“BTW Indian raids was also a cause of secession.”
Prove it. Where is your evidence?
LikeLike
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
Proof that you don’t read all of the available material. ‘Nuff said.
LikeLike
Thank you. No, just proof that you have the ability to do support your assertions with evidence.
And, BTW, much of the “property” that the federal government was failing to protect from the “savages” was slave property.
LikeLike
Doesn’t matter it was property owned under United States laws.
As to me being able to prove anything, honestly you just didn’t know. Tell the truth.
LikeLike
No, it does matter, because it is yet another example in the body of evidence showing that secession was caused by slavery. And, to be honest, I have read the Texas Declaration but it was long ago, and I forgot about the Comanche part.
LikeLike
Sure it amtters, it was slavery under US law. Never said slavery didn’t have anything to do secession. You are acting like Baker now. When are you going to show slavery was a cause of the war???
LikeLike
Sorry, George, but you don’t seem to be able to follow, or are outright denying that there is, a logical chain of events. I can’t have an argument with someone who ignores what I say as if I haven’t said it. I’m done here.
But thanks again for making me read the Texas Declaration–especially since it further supports the argument that slavery cause secession, and therefore the war. And thanks for the inspiration for writing this particular post.
LikeLike
I never said anything about there not being a chain of events. We do know for a fact you leave some links out.
Glad I could help. Thanks for admitting you do not read and thanks for admitting you do not know as much about history as you claim to know.
LikeLike
Ok, George–I’ve created a blog post all for you, answering the question on how slavery caused secession. Thanks for the inspiration!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was a waste of time I never said slavery wasn’t a cause to secession. I did say slavery was not the cause of the war.
LikeLike
Pretty much the same thing, since Lincoln and the North were not going to allow the destruction of the United States by a bunch of sore losers.
LikeLike
Who was trying to destory the US???
Lincoln caused a lot of unnecessray destruction himself. Are you cahnging the subject again?
LikeLike
The seceded states tried to destroy the United States; that’s the meaning of secession. And by bringing up Lincoln, do you see that it is you who are changing the subject?
LikeLike
No they just wanted to live in peace. Lincoln wanted war.
LikeLike
“Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now we are playing with biased quotes instead of historical fact???
Lincoln wanted a war he got a war. That is fact
LikeLike
Nonetheless, it is a most accurate description of events.
LikeLike
[Edit]
LikeLike
One can question my assertions, one can question my sources, one can question my neutrality, one can question my conclusions–that’s fine. But the discussion here happens because we accept each other’s integrity. Whatever else I am doing here, I am describing the truth as I see it in the sources. So to call me a liar is very bad form indeed, George. The gods know I have not questioned your integrity here.
LikeLike
Apparently you don’t understand what a primary source is, George.
LikeLike
I just refuted your documents. They are not relevant, just like you.
LikeLike
Larry Wilmore loves the south. The south to him is much more than neoconfederate white-washing of the past, neoconfederate victimhood in the present, and neoconfederate imagination for the future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
and your point?????
LikeLike
like the times, has passed you by.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another day, another post, another butt whomping of George. Man, Chris just slaughtered you with that post and you can’t see it. I love how you say you refuted documents and offer nothing to refute them with.
You are just in flat out denial of reality. I suggest some psychiatric counseling because it cannot be easy living a live of delusion. Here ya go, some Joe Walsh live to put it into perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=573c6GFQfjQ
LikeLike
Gee [Jimmy] why is it always someone else giving me a buut whupping but never you????????????
LikeLike
Because you are too f****** stupid to understand you’ve been getting your butt whipped every day on this blog and others. It’s a psychological condition you have that I call F***** Stupid.
LikeLike
I love it I absolutely love it. Now you have to resort to foul language. LOL LOL LOL You are the best man on my team. Thanks partner.
LikeLike
Just an FYI Chris, George is responsible for nearly all of the comment policies on my blog. He will hijack posts, wonder off topic, etc. etc.
LikeLike
Yes it seems you like to let others insult your visitors. You hate whites and to be honest you are not smart enough for a blog.
LikeLike
See what I mean Chris?
George likes to say I “hate whites” because I banned him for disparaging remarks towards about Puerto Rican people…to a Puerto Rican woman…on a post….written by a Peurto Rican.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have not seen any sort of racist comments, Rob, and I hope not to. But that’s something I won’t tolerate. Brooks can allow LoSers to comment on his blog; I won’t.
LikeLike
Chris, as far as I know, Texas’ justification for secession is the *only* one that mentions Indians on the frontier. (Which make sense, because Texas was the only seceding state that had an active, ongoing conflict with Native Americans at the time.) But that’s a unique situation that applies to Texas, and cannot be attributed *generally* to the southern states that seceded. If you read the full document, the issue of slavery (and the perceived threat to it) gets a lot more space.
The resentment of the Texas Secession Convention over the perceived failure of the federal government to protect its citizens against the “savages” on the frontier, particularly the Comanche, pretty much puts the lie to the popular notion that Confederates were somehow “better” on Indian issues that the U.S. government was, before, during, or after the Civil War. Extermination of Indians was official policy of the Republic of Texas, even before statehood in 1845. Some folks get righteous about the hanging at Mankato, but on the Texas frontier the Texas Rangers generally didn’t bother with the pretense of legal proceedings or hauling Comanche raiders in for trial.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’ve done some reading on the Comanche, but only up to and not including their conflicts with Texas. Pekka Hämäläinen has done some fascinating work on the evolution of their horse-trading culture.
And now, thanks to George, I have read the whole document, and see that slavery indeed gets a full treatment from Texas.
LikeLike
Regardless how many times slavery is mentioned it is still only one issue.
Mississippi says this —- It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
So now we have Miss. leaving because the slaves would not be provided for.
But the fact of the matter still remains slavery did not cause the war.
LikeLike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhlXqYiTz2Q You need to quit taking the blue pill, George. The red pill of truth won’t kill you no matter what the other Lost Causers say.
LikeLike
You cannot find where I have told a lie. In fact everything I have oposted is true. Now as far as lying goes. I have caught Shelly twice on his blog.
[Edit]
LikeLike
Two things, George:
1) My name is Shelley. With two E’s.
2) Accusing me of lying is a request to be banned. B’bye.
LikeLiked by 3 people
George claims that you have to prove to him that Secession. Caused. the War. because President Lincoln could have let South Carolina accomplish its declared secession without war. Kinda like Roosevelt could have left Japan alone after Pearl Harbor. It’s time to end this thread. It’s not even the thread you want George posting on!
LikeLike
Indeed, Mike. I’m way over it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your kindness to George has been repaid.
LikeLike
Jesus Wept! Boy, he really just doesn’t get it, does he? I guess I can see why he thought I was “lying,” but he’s just too muddle-headed to grasp the overall point.
LikeLike
I made some comments on George’s blog to see what his argument is and to clarify the chain of events, etc. It’s the same old thing that they’re stuck on, which has been refuted time and again. This Larry Wilmore clip gets right at it when he said that the south didn’t invent slavery but they hung on to it tightly, when generally the USA and the rest of the world was ending or seeking to end slavery. Moving on, moving on.
I just want to add here another shout out to the excellent job Al Mackey does to dismantle the false neoconfederate narrative, especially in the chapter by chapter “Book with No Credibility” posts. In the first one, Al has facts, data, and analysis, and he wrote this cogent description:
“Slavery was the issue behind the confederacy wanting its independence to start with. The Federals wanted to preserve the Union, but they struck against slavery almost from the start. Ben Butler’s coming up with the ‘contraband’ device to keep from returning enslaved people to owners was in May of 1861, and from that time onward slaves came into Union lines almost continually.”
LikeLike
I saw your comment at GP’s site, and I appreciated the attempt at clearing the waters, especially that I just didn’t understand what George was trying to say. I added the comment “What Mike said,” but GP never approved it. Oh well.
Yes, Al is a trove. Several times in all this I’ve referred to his material. His thrashing of that book is so complete, it scared me into posting my last thing on the Fourteenth Amendment because I thought he’s get there first and scoop me!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes your argument is the same old tired, worn out, agenda driven argunment that has been tried and tried again. You leave about half the events out of the order to prop your agenda. You brought absolutely no facts but posted your opinion, a bunch of “yes buts” and “what ifs” as if it means something. When you can bring some facts to the table you are welcome to do so.
You don’t have tto run another blog and insult me. I treated you well on Cold Southern Steel,. because of your post here I may not be so kind to you in the future. Think about it.
George Purvis
Cold Southern Steel
http://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
George, we have been over this. I am now convinced that no amount of facts, and no amount of linking those facts in neat cause-and-effect narrative form is going to convince you of anything. Mike has certainly tried, with more patience than I. I certainly can’t say it any clearer. I’ve watched Mike bring fact after fact, and this has become boring.
At least, though, we got you to admit that slavery had something to do with secession, so I suppose that’s a victory of sorts for the forces of reason.
LikeLike
Yes we have been over this and you, your budies and Mike are proven wrong. I brought to the table facts, by Pres. Buchanan, that cannot be disputed and Mike ran off. Of course he may be like you and never read the source, that may be the reason for his comments here.
Now you ubndertstand the comment “slavery had nothing to do with the war.” Amazing. Note I did not say agree but at least you understand.
LikeLike
See, this is the problem: you cannot lay out a bunch of documents and say “See? Facts” without showing how they tell the story. That’s not history. You have to assemble those facts into a convincing narrative–a narrative that at the same time takes all the facts into account–including how slavery caused secession–and how secession caused the wr. Certainly I have way to much to do today to waste time reading thousands of words on Buchanan. If you can’t paraphrase the important parts, using the occasional quote to drive your point home, why should I bother? I suspect Mike fell asleep or threw his hands up in disgust rather than ran away. So, again, bring something new to the table or don’t bother.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It obvious you haven’t read the facts either. Nothing more to say about that.
LikeLike
Yes, George–exactly. ~I’m making all this up because I’ve never actually read the primary sources.~
[Note: text in “~” marks denotes irony.]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly as I thought.
LikeLike
Pingback: The True Blue Federalist —Just another agenda driven Blaog | Cold Southern Steel
I keep telling him, Dodgers, not Yankees.
LikeLike
You know George is never going to accept anything as a fact if it proves him wrong. He needs to start learning how to be a historian instead of a heritage nut. There are Five C’s in history as this article explains. http://www.ysursa.com/history/pdf/Burke%20&%20Andews%20Five%20Cs%20of%20History.pdf
It would behoove the heritage crowd to learn them and apply them to what they do, but then that would end the heritage crowd. I make sure to explain these things to my students in my classes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read Buchanan’s account and the biography of him by Jean H. Baker. The facts remain the same: Confederate forces fired on USA’s Ft. Sumter.
The neoconfederate argument isn’t an argument at all but a hodgepodge of “why didn’t they” questions:
(1) If the founders wanted secession to be unconstitutional, why didn’t they write “Secession isn’t constitutional” in the Constitution?
(2) If the secessionists wanted war, why didn’t arm themselves more fully when the price was so low?
(3) If the USA was anti-slavery, why didn’t they free slaves from loyal slave states?
It goes on and on with the questions. And then the neoconfederates ignore or contort the answers. So, I’m finished answering.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As you know those questions have been answered repeatedly. The neo-confederates do not like the answers. They prefer their simplistic and extremely erroneous ideas which are not supported by the primary sources. It is really crazy because the people of the past were pretty blunt about why they did what they did. It is only after the war when men like Jubal Early understood that they were going to go down in history for rebelling unsuccessfully against the lawful government of the United States in order to be able to continue holding people in slavery that they began to change the story. All one has to do is look at the primary sources to see that.
Yet, these neo-confederates will not do that because that would mean acknowledging they are wrong. It is like Andy Hall said. The argument really isn’t about slavery for them. It is about their modern political ideology. They need a Confederacy to serve as a victim of the federal government. They cannot have a Confederacy that seceded over slavery even though some of them would like to restore that idea. Therefore they manufacture and maintain a falsified version of the past. Unfortunately for them their past is just as rotten as their ideology.
Their ideology is just like that of the Confederacy; a rejection of the principles brought into being by the American Revolution. Liberty and equality cannot be limited to a select audience. History shows these two principles are not bound by any limitations. They cannot be harnessed or restrained.
“True Democracy makes no enquiry about the color of the skin, or the place of nativity. Wherever it sees a man, it recognizes a being endowed by his Creator with original inalienable rights.” –Salmon Chase
LikeLiked by 1 person
and speaking of hodgepodge look at the neo-yankee as you have defined it.
The fact of the matter is I made the statement” slavery was not the cause of the war, you came to Cold Southern Steel to prove me wrong. You are unable to do that, so you retreat to this blog and and attack me and act like you cannot understand what the discussion.is about.
LikeLike
I went to your blog for the reasons I said, to understand your argument and to clarify the chain of events. I left when you said, “Lincoln getting shot was the second best thing that ever happened in this country.” Good day to you sir.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You came to Cold Southern Steel thinking you were some sort of wonder boy and that I would be an easy push over. You were wrong. You ran head first into Mr. Buchanan’s and ir stooped you like a steel door. You didn’t make one comment about the facts Buchanan outlined in these pages. You were trumped and retreated here to bolster your ego.
No you left when you realized you had bit off more than you cold chew. You left so that you would not have to admit the facts thus proving your agenda driven ideas were wrong
I do regret Lincoln did not get shot before he was elected president. that might have spared the lives of a million people both black and white
And a Dixie day to you sir.
LikeLike
Actually, no. Mike went to your site to try and achieve some sort of communication of respect.
As far as the Buchanan material, as I’ve said, copying-and-pasting words on a page without any word of explanation does not constitute “facts” or any real “proof” of anything at all. Tell me, George, what does the Buchanan material mean? I don’t have the time nor energy to go over it without a compelling reason. You have not given me one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No I am right about Mike.
Perhaps you are right I need to explain every little detail for you. I just thought with your education you could read the written word. My mistake.
LikeLike
My education didn’t come with a time machine that allows me to make up for all the time I would waste reading Buchanan. So summarize for me, George. Play a real historian for once. Synthesize the material, make an argument, give specific examples. It should be easy since you’ve got the documents right there. After you do that, if you’ve made an argument that I can’t ignore, I will read the material to see for myself. And then, if you’re right, I’ll say “Wow, you’re right.” Or I may not agree. Or I may agree with your argument, but not with your conclusions. That’s what real historical debate looks like.
LikeLike
But your education came with a time machine that allows you to set-up, maintain , and post on this blog and other blogs. Seems if you just came with excuses???? I do fully understand where you are coming from though. I man you never read thesecession docs., so why should you read Buchanan. I mean all you have to do is keep going back to the secession docs and pretending you don’t ubnderstand my argument.
Don’t try to ourtslick me, you just don’t have what it takes.
Like you, I am not a historian, I have never claimed to be a historian nor do I have any ambition to be one. I can read though and I have found the time to do so.
Now with that being said–
SLAVERY WAS NOT THE CIAUSE OF THE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
–> Slavery caused secession.
I have proved this in the post called “Secession, the Expansion of Slavery, and Race.”
–>Secession caused the war.
We know this because Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion about Ft. Sumter was shelled.
I just don’t get what’s hard to understand about this. What part am I missing?
LikeLike
Slavery was one cause of secession. It was not the only reason. The secession documents prove this.
Slavery was not the cause of the war. I have posted this in Mr. Buchanan’s and the ORs
LikeLike
No. Slavery was overwhelmingly the sole cause of secession. The addresses of the special commissioners that I have discussed prove this. You are hiding behind the secession documents, which also show slavery was a cause. You refuse to even examine all of the “facts” that I laid out in that post. So who is ignoring facts now?
LikeLike
No slavery was only one cause of secession. Remember you don’t read.
LikeLike
If you read through the addresses and letters of the Secession Commissioners here, you will find that they mention the tariff all of 5 times. They mention slavery 132 times. And that’s just the Commissioners documents on this page. There are over 40 such addresses and letters.
Take away the tariff, there is still a Civil War. Take away the Comanches, Texas still leaves the Union. Take away slavery, there is no war.
Slavery was overwhelmingly the cause of secession.
(H/T to Corey Meyer)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chris, I have no need to read anything related to secession. I know wht these docs say. Now according toyour logic and the number of times slavery is mentioned< we go to the OR's type "war" in the search box we get over 300 hits. That wouldmean between 1861and 1865 there were over 300 wars going on in the US! Amazing.
It doesn' matter how many times slavery is mentioned, it was still only one issue.
I know what you are doing, you are playing what i call willful ignorant. That is you haven't haven't the sources or the facts to prove me wrong so you just stick with secession and the secession docs.in hopes that I will tire of the argument and give in to you. Not gonna happen.
You can pretend whatever you want there is noway to make my statement any clearer—-
SLAVERY WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE WAR
LikeLike
Chris, I’m sure I’ve told you this a hundred times. Buchanan let the Confederates seize all the federal property except Ft. Sumter in South Carolina, thus giving secession the Presidential imprimatur, even though Buchanan stated clearly that secession was unconstitutional (it’s the deeds not the words that matter — the Declarations of Causes of Secession are dicta; what matters is the deed that SC seceded etc.). Buchanan promised to let the Confederates have Ft. Sumter but then Buchanan and Lincoln reneged on that promise and it’s those renegers who started the war.
LikeLike
Of course! I forgot. How silly of me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is deeds I agree. Like when Anderson took Sumter and broke a shaky peace agreement. Lime when Buchanan sent re-enforcements to sumter.
Yes it is deeds I agree
LikeLike
Buchanan had every right to send reinforcements to Sumter, since that was U.S. property.
LikeLike
Read. Read. Read. You haven’t a clue do you. Read what Buchanan says abou the incident. Quit playing games.
LikeLike
Well, what does he say, George? You claim this document means something important. What is it?
LikeLike
Why don’t you read it and find out. Are you afraid of what you may learn????
LikeLike
It looks like good old George can’t post anything with facts in it. The last three posts are essentially “I know you are, but what am I?” type posts. I find it amazing he accuses us of not understanding sources while he refused to analyze sources or accept sources that prove him wrong while cherry picking stuff and getting it out of context. If anything George has shown he is not a historian, but a diehard heritage nut incapable of learning.
LikeLike
Well, it’s frustrating because he wants me to read his sources with no interpretation–essentially, I have to do all the work–but he won’t read my sources, which I’ve done the work to make into an actual essay for his benefit. I’m not going to make him slog through a bunch of sources and leave him to figure it out; instead, I’ve done the work of putting them together and making an argument.
But that argument–that slavery and white supremacy caused secession–scares George, and so he must ignore it. It’s ironic that he accuses me of that in which he engages. In psychology, that’s called projection. For my part, I’m not ignoring his sources; I’m just waiting for him to make an argument about them. But he either doesn’t really know how to do that or he’s too lazy. I tend to think the former, but then, as Mike said, I’m probably too nice.
LikeLike
Well said. As you have probably noticed from following the blogs, almost all of the Causers prefer to make statements, erroneous claims, and then fail to provide anything to support their opinions. When they do offer something it is either out of context or overwhelmed by the available evidence. When we historians offer something they just ignore it. This is why I think they use the Lost Cause Handbook which makes them pretty predictable. They’re lazy. They can’t do a historical analysis of anything because they do not know how to do it. They just pick out what they want and that’s it. The rest is ignored and that is why they miss the context.
As for the Waterboy’s recent steaming pile over on Brooks’ blog, you can easily see how he has created an entirely inaccurate history for America which was ripped straight from the handbook. His history has to support his beliefs and ideology. It looks like he took a list of historical events and connected them working backwards. I think the Soviet propaganda writers would have offered him a job writing for them.
LikeLike
One thing I do notice you folks have nothing to prove the WAR WAS CAUSED BY SLAVERY. YOu can insult and demean all you want but you can’t prove me wrong.
LikeLike
The sources will speak for themselves.
Oh and If I want to argue white supremacy I would use Lincoln quotes.
Lazy??? At least I read the sources!!!!!!!!
Now once again SLAVVERY WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE WAR!!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are two extremes, George. One is to make assertions with no evidence. I hate that, and you’ve probably seen that on the CW blogs. The other extreme is to provide documents and such as evidence, but not tell anyone what you are asserting. What a historian does is combine these two ideas: make an assertion (a thesis), and then show the evidence that proves the thesis. Then we all get to argue about it.
What I honestly respect about you, George, is that you really think you’ve got a good thesis, and you are providing honest-to-god documentation for that thesis. And I truly, sincerely appreciate that. You aren’t yanking things out of context, you’re not manipulating data to get the result you want–none of the things dishonest people do. And that’s why I continue to let you argue on this blog: because I think you’re trying to tell the truth as you see it. I may disagree with that “truth,” but not because of you; rather, because I don’t think the evidence points that way.
My immediate problem here is two-fold: first, I can’t tell what your thesis is, because the documents do not speak for themselves. It is incumbent upon the historian to present both thesis and evidence. That is the nature of the craft. Second, I have done exactly that on my blog, in the post about secession and slavery: I offer a thesis, and then I present shit-tons of evidence–documents, “facts”–to support that thesis. And I did that because you inspired me to. But you refuse to read it!
I can’t work with that, George. I am more than will to examine your thesis on Sumter, but you have to provide me with one. (And again, that’s not being unfair; that’s just how the craft of history works). And I’m more than willing to listen to your critique of my post on why secession was caused by slavery, but I can’t unless you read it. We are at an impasse.
So show me the money, George. I’m not being disrespectful–I truly want to hear your Buchanan-Sumter argument. And likewise, I would appreciate it if you would read mine, and tell me why I’m wrong. I have no problem with that. But I truly tire of these “You didn’t prove it/yes I did/no you didn’t” spats. It is not interesting to me and I’ve got other things to do. (Did you see my new post on Lincoln’s racism?) So, please come back with something of substance, or fare thee well.
Go Dodgers!
LikeLike
Oh good grief I am dealing with a buinch of 3rd graders who can’t read. Now they are arguging against a President of the United States. How far will they go to be right?? As I said attcak the nmessenger not the message. That says a lot about you and Dick.
Folks if you are getting tired of this BS please visit Cold Southern Steel or Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education. I have factuial history posted.
LikeLike
Good old Jimmy has nothing useful to add to the converstaion. Just his usual demeaning remarks.
Tell me Jimmy why should I post any fact when it known the sources are not being read???
LikeLike
Anyone can post a source. Tell us what they mean and in what context. So far you can’t do that. You can’t do much of anything but run your mouth and make stupid statements that you cannot back up. We’ve shown slavery was the cause of the Civil War. You cannot prove that it wasn’t.
You just cannot prove all the people in the past wrong. They said it was about slavery and you cannot shut them up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
See Jimmy that is the problem with stupid statements such as “slavery caused the war.” It is just that it is stupid. History does not support that statement. What Chris has proven and I admitted as much 731 replies ago is that slavery was one cause of secession. You have sucessfully proven how stupid you really are and I also admitted that ages ago.
Since then I have provided at least two sources that prove the war was not caused by slavery. They are the Ghost admendment and Mr. Buchanans Admin on the EVE. At the present time i am working on a 3rd source which is the ORs, which for the most part just support Buchanan’s satemnets. Now Chris and I are adults so there is no need for me to add any commentary to either of these documents because we both can read the written. You are a bit different, you hard headed and agenda driven so you more than likey need evry sentence broken down for you. That being your situation you are barking up the wrong tree. . I am not here to teach a bunch of grown-ups who act like 5th graders. Sorry.
BTW I note you all only attack the messenger not the message why is that???
LikeLike
Btw, if you have read the sources, what were they? What is your historical analysis of the South Carolina Declaration of Secession? Here is the link to the source. Give us your analysis of that source. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not a problem — The S. C. Declarations are a list of grivences against the US government. It is not declaration of war.
LikeLike
Oh and by the way, I want to say thanks to George, the Waterboy, and all the Lost Causers out there. Thanks to them I am guaranteed employment for as long as I want to work. Somebody with intelligence has to teach and people like them cannot. So there will always be a need for people like me who can teach history to people who want to learn while people like George rant and rave about heritage and only appeal to stupid people.
LikeLike
Yes there will always be a need for people like you who can toe the line, in the field of academics, for the purpose of perpetuating the lie of the cause of the war and keep the shining myth of good old Abe bright. Notice how you fellows spin a couple of documents, that have nothing to do with the war, in favor of an agenda based on a lie.and stupidity and call it real history.That is an excellent example of why people like me, who does not swallow this ignorance hook, line and sinker will always be around. I don’t mind the attacks on me for the simple reason it serves to prove you cannot attack the message.
For these reasons peopke will always seek the truth at Cold Southern Steel or Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education.
Have A Dixie day.
LikeLike
Your response shows you will say anything to get out of admitting slavery was the cause of the Civil War, George. The Ghost Amendment shows slavery was the cause of the CW. The SC declaration of secession shows slavery was the cause of the war. No one thinks it is a declaration of war. Where did you come up with that stupid idea? You just made three posts that show you don’t know anything about the cause of the war.
If anyone goes to your site it is because they chose to either remain stupid or to see what stupid people say about the past. You don’t do anything with history but mangle it.
At least I have students who can think. People like you prefer to live in ignorance. I would never let my students use your site for anything except as an example of why people who believe in the Lost Cause are morons. The facts are staring you in the face. You even have them and take them out of context trying to prove you are right. If you can’t figure out the secession declarations are about slavery, then that is just you being willfully ignorant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good job Jimmy , I knew that would be your exact response due to youir hate and ignorance . That being the case let’s just put this up for all readers sorta just to see which one of us isa liar.
The Ghost Admendment reads —
“No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” –Joint Resolution of Congress, Adopted March 2, 1861
This was before Sumter. It was a last ditch effort on the part of the Federal Governemnet to bring the states that had seceeded back into the fiold. If the issue had been slavery then the South would just returned and war avoided. Of course we know that didn’t happen.
The SC Declaration is not a declarations only idiots woulld think such.Oh that would be you wouldn’t it????
LikeLike
Just what domestic institution do you think they’re referring to in the document? Lincoln opposed the amendment by the way. This is where your lack of contextual understanding stabs you in the back. This amendment is more proof that it was about slavery. I am just shaking my head that you failed on this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really doesn’t amtter what Lincoln thought of the adm. The fact is it passed Congress and was on its way to ratification when war broke out. Are you now telling me that Lincoln started a war to keep this adm. from being ratified by the states??? Is that your position???
If the a13th adm. proves the war was about slavery, then you are telling me the South went to war for what Congress of the US was offerring then. Is that correct??? If so then why????
Jimmy this is just proof you have no clue what you are talking about. Instaed of trying to deal with real history I suggest you go back to you insults.That is where you are the most comfortable.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter what Lincoln thought of the admend. It was passed and on the way to retification when war broke out. Now are you telling me that Lincoln started a war to prevent this adm.om becoming law???
Ok let’s say the adm. proves the war was about slavery. Now you are trying to tell me the Federal governemnt was offerring the institution of slavery to the South free and clear, but the South says no we do not want a gift we had rather fight instaed of getting our way. Is that the ignorance you are trying to promote??? Man that is really dumb.
I have failed on nothing.You haven’t proved me wrong yet.
LikeLike
George, you said:
Yes! That’s exactly what we are saying. Because for the Deep South, it was crucial to expand slavery, not just keep it where it was. The Slave Power absolutely had to have new territories for slavery to expand into. New free territories would become free states. New free states would eventually have the power to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery (or so the Deep South feared). You would know this, George, if you had read my posts. And there’s nothing “dumb” about it. The secession commissioners’ addresses show this explicitly. This is exactly why slavery caused secession, which caused the war.
At last, we are getting somewhere!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah right Chris. I can just see those Southerners sitting arounfsaying :”gentle the federal government is giving us slavery ifwecome back to the Union. Shall we? Hell no let’s fight for slavey..
Oh boy you fellows come up with some off the wall thinking!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Nothing off-the-wall about it, George. It is the established narrative. I offer you my proof here. You see, merely keeping slavery in the states where it existed was not enough for Southern slaveholders. They required expansion of slavery into the territories; they required the nationalization of slave property, not just leaving it to state law. They overreacted to Lincoln’s election, and seceded.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You offer no proof that the secession docs are declarations of war or the Confederacy was fighting for slavery.
Bring some real proof.
LikeLike
The evidence I’ve shown is more than just the Ordinances of Secession. My evidence (which you clearly haven’t examined) is the addresses of the secession commissioners. There are over 40 such documents, and leave no doubt–no doubt at all–that the Deep South states left because they felt slavery was threatened; that the federal government was not protecting slavery; that slavery could not expand into the territories. As you like to say, George, “It’s all right there in the documents.”
So please, read those documents (and my post has the links), and then come back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course I have. I continue to direct you to my real “proof,” and you continue to ignore it or pretend I haven’t. Read the addresses by the Special Secession Commissioners. There you will find unequivocal proof that the Cotton States seceded from the Union because they thought Lincoln was going to destroy it.
LikeLike
You can read all the secession docs you want. You can post all the secession docs you can find still you cannot prove that slavery was the cause of the war.
LikeLike
The Secession Commissioners addresses, as I’ve said. If you aren’t going bother reading the evidence, and commenting on that evidence, you aren’t contributing anything to this conversation. And if you aren’t going to contribute anything except “you haven’t proved it,” when clearly we have, you are just doing this:
And I have no use for it. So please add something or go back to Cold Southern Steel and put up some more of the ORs out of order to make it awkward for people to read properly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chris I may have replied to this once but in logging in it may have been lost. If this is doubled simply delete one.
Your secession docs are meaningless. The 13th admen. blows them out of the water. The South did not return to the Union as we all know.
Here something you should read. I am editing iot because it is such a long reply. You can look this up yourself. It is the Federal governemnts position on Ft. Sumter.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, Part 1 (Charleston Campaign)
Page 166 OPERATIONS IN CHARLESTON HARBOR, S.C. Chapter I
WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 6, 1861.
Hon. I. W. HAYNE,
Attorney-General of the State of South Carolina:
It is difficult, however, to reconcile with this assurance the declaration on your part that “it is a consideration of her [South Carolina’s]
Page 168
own dignity as a sovereign, and the safety of her people, which prompts her to demand that this property should not longer be used as a military post by a Government she no longer acknowledges,” and the thought you so constantly present, that this occupation must lead to a collision of arms, and the prevalence of civil war.
J. HOLT,
Secretary of War.
There is your cause right there put into plain English. Now about those secession docs———
I can go back to Cold Southern Steel it doesn’t matter to me, you will still be wrong. Of cources you can always post another page and get props from your buddies who are just as wrong as you are. It your choice, do what floats your boat.
LikeLike
No, the secession docs are vital and telling. You myopically focus on who shot first in the context of two independent countries, while refusing to look at why one of these countries came into being, and why the other refused to accept that.
Yes, you may go back to CSS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let us also note here for the public record that George did not analyze the South Carolina Declaration of Secession. He said it was a list of grievances against the United States. Note that he did not state what those grievances were about. That would be due to the fact that those grievances dealt with the issue of slavery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure I did I said it was nothing but a list of grievences against the Federal government. There is no place it declares war.
Let’s also note for the record Jimmy Dick is the only person whocannot read the wtitten wotd without having someone break it down for him. Gee what a wasted education.
LikeLike
Still waiting on your analysis, George. A list of grievances? What grievances? Let’s ANALYZE the document. Hmm, looks like they were complaining about the issue of slavery. Since there is only one issue in the document it must only be about ONE issue and that does not make it a list. Man, I’m shaking my head again at George’s inability to analyze a historical document.
LikeLike
Slavery was an issue. I have said that many times. Now please point out the passage where they said they the purpose of going to war was beacsue of that institution. Please point out where they decklared war on the US.I have not been able to find that passage in several years.
Oh and BTW the 13th adm. came after secession. That means it trumps any secession document you can find.
LikeLike
Oh, good, George contradicts himself as usual. Imagine my surprise. George, you also make a claim regarding something I never said. Also, no surprise here. See, the Corwin Amendment was favored by Lincoln. You didn’t do any research on this or you would have caught that deliberate insertion into the conversation to see if you actually bothered to look stuff up.
This amendment was passed before Lincoln came into office by Congress. It went to the states for ratification per the Constitution. The only way it could have passed was with approval by some states that seceded. However, Jefferson Davis ordered the attack on Ft. Sumter thus starting the Civil War. I’m sure you think that was not what started the war, George, but it was. It was an armed insurrection against the lawful government of the United States. Lincoln was perfectly within his rights as president to call up the militia and send the army against anyone in arms against the US government.
So Lincoln did not start the war, he did not declare war against the confederacy because he was not declaring war against a sovereign government. He was putting down a rebellion within the borders of the United States of America. That is beyond dispute. If you think otherwise, George, then you need to go back to school because you failed basic history.
But then you deliberately refuse to use context in your so called research. You are not a historian. You are an idiot trying to pretend you know something. You have been proven wrong on multiple occasions and just like the Waterboy you keep repeating the same stupid things over and over again. I don’t care how many times you say slavery was not the primary cause of the CW, George, it was. You have never even shown any proof that it wasn’t. In fact, you have proven that it was on a few occasions. The Corwin amendment is just a sterling example of that.
George’s Words: “Ok let’s say the adm. proves the war was about slavery. Now you are trying to tell me the Federal governemnt was offerring the institution of slavery to the South free and clear, but the South says no we do not want a gift we had rather fight instaed of getting our way.”
Yep. That’s what we are saying. That is exactly what happened. The amendment was the gift of slavery IN THE STATES WHERE IT EXISTED. It was not in the territories. Here is what Lincoln said about the amendment in his inaugural address, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service….holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Now here is the question. Would this amendment have been ratified had the seven states of the Deep South not seceded and started the CW? I think it might have had a realistic chance. However, we will never know. Once the war started the amendment was dead in the water. The argument made by the people of that time period was about the expansion of slavery, not where it already existed. Sure, the abolitionists were all for ending slavery, but they were a minority. A very small minority at that. That amendment would have killed abolition on a national level, but not the state level. Abolitionists could continue to work to get states to end slavery.
No, the slaveowners needed slavery to expand. That is what they were saying and that is what the argument was about. This amendment did absolutely nothing to halt that argument. Lincoln was on record on this issue multiple times. The CW itself is responsible for making the ending of slavery possible. Who knows what would have happened had a war not been fought? But it was and that is as they say, history. As is the Corwin amendment. It too went into the scrapheap of proposed amendments that failed for one reason or another.
As for the 13th amendment, it was the byproduct of a war about slavery. I do not know where you get your idea there, but it wasn’t from us. You are trying to insert words into the conversation and attribute them to us, but I think we do a better job keeping track than you do. We do not claim that the US went to war to end slavery. It is plainly obvious it did not fight to do so until ending slavery became a war goal. The war was about slavery though because the people of that time told us it was. Specifically they said it was about the expansion of slavery which to the people of the south was the foundation of their way of life (their own words too). They believed that without slavery’s expansion the institution would wither and die. For slaveowners that meant the loss of their political power.
For decades the slaveowners had used the power of the federal government to expand and protect their institution of slavery. The election of 1860 with Lincoln not even on the ballot in most southern states signified the loss of the control. With slavery’s expansion potentially blocked slaveowners would never control the federal government and use it to support their policies and their plantation style economic system which was inefficient and not very well conducive to the rest of the country. Slavery was the common thread that bound those states together via the slaveowners control. If that thread was broken, what real power did a slaveowner have? If slavery could not expand, how could the political power of the slaveowners be maintained?
Kansas was the state most likely to be able to support slavery out of the rest of the west. It failed to expand to that state. The slaveowners saw themselves being hemmed in and reacted accordingly. You can say it was about economics. Sure, the economics of slavery. You can say it was about politics. Sure, the politics of slavery. You can say it was about anything, but it always comes back to slavery each time. Thomas Hart Benton said it best “We read in Holy Writ, that a certain people were cursed by a plague of frogs, and that the plague was everywhere. You could not sit down at the banquet table but there were frogs, you could not go to the bridal couch and lift the sheets but there were frogs! We can see nothing, touch nothing, have no measures proposed, without having this pestilence thrust before us. Here it is, this black question, forever on the table, on the nuptial couch, everywhere!”
LikeLiked by 2 people
So instead of posting the passage from the S. C. secession doc. where war is decalred you decide to give a history lesson?
You and Chris will say anything to keep from facing the truth. Gotta go post more on Cold Southern Steel from the ORs.
LikeLike
Don’t you mean stuff you cherry picked from the ORs out of context which falls apart when it is placed in context with everything else?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you think I have cherry picked anything, feel free to do the look-ups in the OPRs yourself. I gave exact references so it should make the job easy for you.
Oh BTW everything I have saidis being verified by at least two sources. I have yet tofind anything supporting your claim the secession docs prove the Confederacy was fighting for slavery. So far all we have is the opinion of you and Chris!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
While we’re at it, let’s put in this quote by Alvin Toffler which is rapidly being proven by George and the neo-confederates everywhere. The world is going to pass those people by and in my opinion is already doing so.
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. ”
LikeLike
You are free to post anything you want up to and including proof the war was fought over slavery. When are you going to do that??? It is like your opinion — meaningless.
Show us the passage in the S. C. secession doc. that declares war.
LikeLike
Once again, George proves Alvin Toffler correct. Poor George, unable to distinguish fact from fiction. I guess that is what happens when you make up stuff in order to believe myths.
LikeLike
I love it when you post comments usch as this, it proves you do not have the facts to prove me wrong. Good job, keep it up.
Be sure to check out cold Southern Steel , more from theOEs will be posted today.
http://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
I think the Beatles were writing about George and the people like him almost 50 years ago. Maybe they were watching the Centennial and wondered where all that Lost Cause crap came from?
LikeLike
and what would the song be. I wanna hold your hand? Sorry Jimmy I don’t sweing that way. Thanks for asking.
LikeLike
Whoosh! Right over George’s head!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh George, we’re waiting on all your proof with breathless anticipation. You know, those facts you keep claiming to have. Like the one you used by Buchanan that actually proved you wrong. One day when you learn how to be a historian you might figure out why you got it wrong. I won’t be holding my breath. But until you can prove your claims which you have failed to do repeatedly EVERY SINGLE TIME no one is going to take you seriously.
You can’t even go through the South Carolina Declaration of Secession without screwing it up. I’m still waiting on your analysis which you have not provided.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You saying Buchanan is wrong is not proof. If you wnat me to be wrong then find in Mr. Buchanan’s where Buchanan says we are going to war because of the institution of slavery. Ther ORs must be wrong also as that verify everything Buchanan says. I guess Jimmy Dick and Chris Shelley know more about the events than the presiding President of The United States at the time????
I told you I can do this forever. Did you think I was kidding????
LikeLike
Wrong about what? I don’t even know what your point is. Make a point or stop commenting here. This thread is ridiculously long to have so little content.
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes you have played that game before and sent Mike what ever- his name is to put my mind right. He left Cold Southern Steel for the saftey of this blog.
Figure it out for yourself
LikeLike
I “sent” no-one anywhere. Mike chose to try and engage you fairly. I watched him try and deal with your circular arguments with poise, until you frustrated him.
Oh, I have figured it out, George. If you wish to comment here any more on this topic (you are free to comment on other topics, of course), then you must deal with the secession commissioners’ addresses. If not, have a Dodger Day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apparently, this is the max length for comments. Here’s the rest for the record:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here you go, George! Start learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNmeOOJCDY
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for making my point. Secession not war. You would think you would have caught a hint by now.
LikeLike
But secession led directly to war, George. There were a couple steps in between, but without secession, there’s no war. Period.
Now, refute that with evidence, or please stop commenting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The act of secession itself did not cause the war. If secssion was the casue of the war. then why didn’t one of the presidents send troops to Biloxi, Miss.??? Neither president named a law in which secession was illegal, would that have been just cause for a war? Neither president used slavery as a reason to send troops to Sumter.
The fact is no troops in Sumter, no war.
LikeLike
But Lincoln did send troops to Ft. Pickens in Florida. Neither president named a law because there was no specific law. Lincoln held that the Union under the Constitution was itself unbreakable, and no such law was needed. We’ve discussed this. You’re going around in circles.
For Lincoln, slavery wasn’t the issue. Union and secession were the issues. He said so repeatedly, starting with his 1st Inaugural address. Again, you are pointing to the spark instead of the massive amount of fuel that created the conflagration of the war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am supposeed to believe a youtube over the ORs and Buchanan???? So this is where you got your education.
LikeLike
Well, if you actually watched this video, you would get an amazingly full picture of what actually happened in 14 minutes. And what is it that Buchanan says, George? Please now–it’s time to put up or shut up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gee, let’s see. Historian reads Buchanan. Historian sees where Buchanan says slavery is the problem. Historian reads ORs. Historians sees in ORs where slavery is the problem. Historian reads a lot of sources, of which almost all say slavery was the problem. Moron named George reads Buchanan. []George fails to understand that slavery was the problem because []George refuses to accept that conclusion. Same [guy] reads the ORs and says they don’t say anything about slavery. Again, [he] is refusing to accept the evidence the contradicts his idea.
The Historian develops his interpretation based on the evidence. The [guy] refuses to accept any evidence that shows he is wrong. The Youtube video is based on historical evidence while the [guy] disputes the video because it does not say what he wants the history to be. Why should anyone bother with the [guy] when he has been proven wrong multiple times including by the very sources he displays?
LikeLiked by 1 person
gee historian has not posted anything from Buchannan or the ORs saying slavery is the problem. Me thinks historian is not telling the truth
LikeLike
Why are you fixated on Buchanan? He writes all thru his address about slavery causing the hostility in both sections. That seems to hurt your argument.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay George, time for you to pony up. Secession documents show that slavery was the issue that caused the Civil War. Prove me wrong.
LikeLike
I already have . The 13th does that
I have told you time and time again, the secession docs mean nothing when you are discussing the cause of the war. The 13rh admend. blows them out of the water. Slavery became a none issue and soon disappeared from sight as the incidents at Sumter became the issue of the day. This easy to prove by reading Mr. Buchannan’s and the ORs.
Here is a portion of a reposnse to the government in South Carolina regarding Ft. Sumter. You can look this up yourself to view the entire letter. This actually mentions going to war for something.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, Part 1 (Charleston Campaign)
Page 166 OPERATIONS IN CHARLESTON HARBOR, S.C. Chapter I.
It is difficult, however, to reconcile with this assurance the declaration on your part that “it is a consideration of her [South Carolina’s]
Page 168
own dignity as a sovereign, and the safety of her people, which prompts her to demand that this property should not longer be used as a military post by a Government she no longer acknowledges,” and the thought you so constantly present, that this occupation must lead to a collision of arms, and the prevalence of civil war.
See how your little secession docs and speeches become meaningless as war nears. Fort Sumter is the isuue — the only issue.
I can go back to Cold Southern Steel, not a problem, and you will still be wrong about wslavery causing the war. You can also make another page and gst props from your buddies who by the way also failed to prove me wrong. It is just a matter of what floats your boat.
More of the ORS going up today. Take a read.
LikeLike
No, George. The secession docs mean everything when it comes to the war. Sumter is merely the place where circumstances dictated the beginning of the war.
So, thanks for participating. Please address my blog post on race and secession if you wish to participate further on this issue.
This thread is closed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excuse me, but Fort Sumter was not the property of South Carolina. It was the legal property of the United States of America. The deed is on file. I believe either Andy or Al wrote a very nice and exquisitely detailed article on this citing facts. Just because the secessionists in SC disagreed does not mean they were correct. They were wrong on pretty much everything such as SC’s owning that fort.
Had you used context in your historical analysis along with factual evidence you would have known this.
LikeLike
Jimmy you are correct but there is more than that to be said about the issue. You are free to come to Cold Southern Steel if you want to. But you have to leave your insults at home and be civil. Can I assume you are keeping up with my OR posts????
Tell me in your honest op0inion whay shouuld i believe either Andy Hall or Al Mackey, known bigots????
LikeLike
You may not like them, but I must say those gentlemen are not bigots.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One last thing: George, the ORs are great for what they are. But they deal mostly with military issues, starting with the Sumter crisis. They don’t cover anything before that. That’s why the secession docs are so crucial–one cannot understand the war without understanding the period right after Lincoln’s election. Of course, you should go back 10 or 20 years–at the very least go back to 1854–if you really want to understand the pressures that cause secession and the war.
So this is why your analysis of slavery, secession, and the war is faulty; it’s not the OR documents you are using; you need to go further back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True to an extent but not entirely correct. I noticed you skipped over the OR post I made here. Why?????
LikeLike
Well, why did you ignore all my evidence–backed up with facts–in the other blog post?
To answer your question, that document deals with you tiny sliver of what was going on. In the context of the time period under study, it’s not significant in the big picture.
It’s not enough to just read a document. You have to ask questions of it–one must interrogate the sources. In this case, we have to ask why is Sec’y of War Holt writing to I. W. Hayne the Attorney-General of South Carolina about who owns Ft. Sumter? Why does Holt warn Hayne that his course of action is dangerous and could lead to war?
The answer is, of course, that two sides are negotiating over Ft. Sumter. Why? Under what justification does SC claim it, and the US deny that claim? Keep asking questions of the sources, and eventually you get to secession. But why did SC secede? Because they feared the Republican victory in the elections meant grave danger to slavery.
That’s the way it works. That’s why I didn’t answer it–it’s just one document dealing with the Sumter crisis. And that crisis, while important in itself in a discussion about who fired first and why, doesn’t address the larger picture of why there was war in the first place. The secession documents don’t declare war–of course not, that’s silly–but they do demonstrate that the Deep South was seceding from the Union over slavery. Without secession, there’s no war. Period. Now THAT is a historical fact.
And without slavery, there’s no secession. That’s what I proved in the blog post you refuse to read.
History is very different from what you think it is, George. You have to look at documents and events before the ORs. That’s why I keep telling you to look at the post I made. But you resist looking of what those crucial documents say. So instead of reading them, you just say you have “no need to adress [sic] race and secession.” That’s hardly the approach a real historian takes. That’s the approach of someone who has already decided on the result he wants, and be damned to the rest of the evidence.
So, fair’s fair: I have read the ORs you have shown us at CSS. Now it’s your turn to read my blog post and tell me why I’m wrong. If not, then I reserve the right to not approve your posts. You’re not banned, mind you–I’ve got nothing against you, and actually really do want your engagement–but I’ve looked at your evidence, and now I want you to comment on mine.
Until then, Go Dodgers!
LikeLiked by 2 people
The answer is simple, you secession docs and speeches are made meaningless by the 13tjh adm. and events leading up to the war. The secession docs are nothing more tthan a list of griveances against the Federal government. They in no way imply the act of war. There is no evidence the cause of the war was slavery.
I have posted the 13th , Mr. Buchanan’s and most of the OEs supportinmg Buchanan yet you still argue the secession docs. and speeches while ignoring other events. Let me offer something else.
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.
FROM James D. Richardson; A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 6 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office
Crittenden Resolution
John J. Crittenden, Congressman (KY)
1861
(passed by both houses of Congress in July 1861)
Now I know what your argument will be, that the Federal government was fighting to preserve the Union, but you cannot have two countries fighting for different reasons. The South did not fight because the US offered them slavery on a platter, it is a ridiculous argument. The issue was something else. What was that issue??? Ft. Sumter The broader issue money.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, Part 1 (Charleston Campaign)
Page 198 OPERATIONS IN CHARLESTON HARBOR, S.C. Chapter I.
General Scott’s memoranda for the Secretary of War.
It is known, indeed, that it would be
Page 201
charged to necessity, and the holding of Fort Pickens would be adduced in support of that view. Our Southern friends, however, are clear that the evacuation of both the forts would instantly soothe and give confidence to the eight remaining slaveholding States, and render their cordial adherence to this Union perpetual. The holding of Forts Jefferson and Taylor, on the ocean keys, depends on entirely different principles, and should never be abandoned; and, indeed, the giving up of Forts Sumter and Pickens may be best justified by the hope that we should thereby recover the State to which they geographically belong by the liberality of the act, besides retaining the eight doubtful States.
Now do you see what I don’t give your secession docs and speeches any attention??? They are made meaninmgless by other events.
LikeLike
Time and time again I have asked you to prove the secession doc. were war declarations, you have failed to do so. Why? Now you are coming right out and saying the secession docs show that slavery was the cause of the war, yet your only proof is the secession docs.
The 13th admen. makes these docs null and void
Show where these docs are declaring war over the issue of slavery and I will admit I am wrong. If you cannot do so, be a man, and admit I am right.
LikeLike
No-one has ever said that the secession ordinances were declarations of war. Your sense of “cause and effect” is incredibly limited to events at Sumter. That like saying in 1941, airplanes destroyed the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, not the Empire of Japan. And Jimmy has already exploded your 13th Amendment argument. You have not shown why he’s wrong. You don’t seem to get that a federal guarantee to protect slavery where it existed was not enough for Southern slaveholders, and they left the Union over it anyway.
I’m sorry, George, but I can’t devote any more time to this. I’m willing to argue with you in the spirit of a good argument, but you just aren’t doing that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
George, Have you read Apostles of Disunion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
George, in reference to your last post. You are wrong. The secession documents do tell us exactly why the Lower South seceded: SLAVERY. They said it loud and proud.
You are trying to separate the actual start of a shooting war with what caused that war in the first place. The order from Jefferson Davis started the actual shooting war. The cause of the war was slavery itself. Had slavery not been causing secession there would not have been a war. The 13th Amendment does not prove the war was not about slavery. The ORs are military documents that come from the Civil War, a war caused by slavery.
You have done absolutely nothing to prove us wrong. In fact, you’ve shown more evidence that shows you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. You can’t even use the ORs properly because you’re trying to use them to prove something that they actually exist as the direct result of.
As for Buchanan, he flat out said that secession was the result of slavery yet you ignore that. Don’t waste my time with your ignorance any more. If you are too f****** stupid to understand what the people of the past said, then just shut up. The more I sit here and look at your “evidence” the more I see a dumbass who ignores context and anything that proves him wrong. Just shut up. Quit lying to everyone because that is exactly what you are doing. What you say may fly with the uneducated trash of America but it gets you laughed out of schools across the country.
Go back to your George Wallace bumper sticker collection.
LikeLike
Well I see you are back to your foul language and insults. That would mean I have posted facts you can’t dispute.
Oh and BTW I never said slavery was not one cause of secession I said it wasn’t the cause of the war. Now you have proof positive.
LikeLike
George,
Have you read Apostles of Disunion? Have you actually read history instead of making trash up? You keep making the same claim and you can’t prove it. You can’t even use facts. Every time you do you prove yourself wrong. I’m laughing at how you use Buchanan. Good grief, you butcher it so badly. My students see this and they laugh at you. They can see what he is saying, but you deliberately refuse to admit that he said slavery was the problem. How f****** dumb are you?
LikeLike
Again, George! Have you read Apostles of Disunion? If you cannot answer the question I will take your silence to mean you have not read the book.
LikeLike
George’s statement “The fact is no troops in Sumter, no war” offers not a fact but a hypothetical. The facts are that Ft. Sumter belonged to the USA and that Confederate forces fired upon it. Look, the USA currently has a naval base in Cuba. My point is that Jefferson Davis could have shown magnanimity about Ft. Sumter but chose to attack instead. George’s point is that Abraham Lincoln could have surrendered Ft. Sumter. The fact is that both men made their decisions.
LikeLike
MacPherson writes that Davis and the new Confederate gov’t were effectively forced to fire on Sumter to show the Upper South (which hadn’t yet seceded) that they were serious. Virginia, Tennessee, et al were not going to join the Confederacy if it did what South Carolina had been doing for 30 years: talk big about resisting the federal gov’t, only to back down when things threatened to get hot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know so much about the Confederates they fired to show the upper South they were serious, but as the ORs are pointing out and I will post more of this in due time, Lincoln was putting together quite a large fleet to invade South Carolina. South Carolina and the rest of the country knew what was going down the road they had no choice but to fight.
I will say this, and it is just my opinion, war was going to happen one way or the other at any given place. Sumter just fit the bill at the time. Money being the root problem, since the issue of slavery was settled by secession. That too is a post for another day
Great point about the upper South still being in the Union.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter which side owned Sumter, that is just smoke and mirrors argument. The facts that I have already presented in Mr. Buchanan’s and the ORs prove that point. The fact that Sumter commanded the harbor of Charleston was reason enough for South Carolina to want Anderson out. South Carolina made an offer to buy Sumter at a fair price, the US refused to sell only added more agitation. Ownership only came into question when war was near. Anderson’s move to Sumter was considered an act of war.
All of these facts have been posted.
Gitmo. Different set of circumstances.
LikeLike
Ok. Why did SC claim Ft. Sumter for its own, when it clearly belonged to the US?
LikeLike
Sumter commanded the harbor entrance. The other forts supported Sumter. Anderson could have shut down any sea trade with Charleston from Sumter.
I would guess that by the act of secession that South Carolina tclaimed ownership of tyhe fort. The issue started when Buchanan was pres. , an aggrement was made forAnderson to not do anything to cause aggravation. Moving to Sumter and all parties knowing the importance of this fort set the events to war in motion.
To be honest I haven’t, at this time, read anything about the 3 year time frame to complete the forts in the harbor. Keep that fact in mind, it may become part of the issue later.
LikeLike
South Carolina could not buy Ft. Sumter because South Carolina was part of the United States, not some illegal renegade secession government. The traitors in South Carolina were acting illegally so there is no justification for their attacks on the lawful government of the United States. The rebellion was put down over time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I agree, but SC believed they had a right to buy it, and so my question: Why did SC claim Ft. Sumter for its own, when it clearly belonged to the US?
LikeLike
Well see that is where you are wrong. You have to get over your bigotry and hate and klet history tell the story. The Confederates were not traitors anymore than anyone else who has fought for independence.
Now we do know for a fact that Buchanan and Lincoln to an extent recognized the Confederate government because both these US Presidents meet with oppece commisioners from the CSA. South Carolina had everyright to buy Sumter if the US government wanted to sell. I know of no law preventing such a sale , do you????
LikeLike
Chris says that interpreting the secession declarations as declarations of war is “silly.” And George says that the secession declarations are “nothing but a list of grievences against the Federal government.” He continues, “There is no place it declares war.” Here’s some pushback.
It is true that the secession declarers fantasized about achieving secession without war. They acted upon their fantasy (1) by trying to get as many slave states as possible to join them so that the resulting confederation would be sufficiently large to discourage the USA from militarily putting down the slave state insurrection and (2) by acting as much as possible as if secession was fait accompli to encourage the people in the slave states to support them and to discourage the people in the free states from acting against them.
The proper way, though, to consider the secession declarations is not just as lists of grievances but as declarations of intention to go to war. They all conclude with the announcement that the so-called seceded states are now free and independent states, i.e. they already won the war that didn’t happen because they pre-emptively, single-handedly, and without negotiation emerged victorious against the people with whom they had grievances. Thus the secession declarations set down the clear implication that the so-called seceded states intended to fight militarily to achieve what they declared, if the federal government said no.
(By the way secession declared was not secession accomplished, just as revolution declared was not revolution accomplished. The revolution declared in 1776 was accomplished with the 1783 Treaty of Paris.)
LikeLike
What a load of hooey. War was never the intention. If you have been following my OR posting you will see that peace commissions from both sides were meeting to avoid war. It isclearlystated Ft. Sumter is the issue, nothing more, nothing less.
Besides with secession, sthe issue of slavery was settled for the United States. It was never going to expand more, that is just common sense.
LikeLike
The only thing you are showing is the lack of context in your attempt to write history. You are missing a lot of information because it proves you wrong. That is why I say you are lying. Plus, the argument was over slavery’s expansion. [Why] are you…ignor[ing] what the people were saying?
LikeLike
I don’t think George is lying, because I think he believes it, which means he’s sincere. But I agree that he’s is not putting his facts in context, and that fatally flaws his interpretation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t have to put anything into content.The documents i have posted and still post tellthe truth. When you say I don’t put things into content, context and offer no narrative, it simply means you do not agree with me, yet you have no facts to support your position.
A good example is Jimmy Dick, he is reduced to using foul language and insults.
LikeLike
I have wrote no revisions to history, that is an outright lie. I have not certainly not conmeup with some off the wall narrative trying to explain slavery and the war.I have posted nothing but facts supported by documents —UNION documents. The fact you have a clue about his is evident in your responses.
LikeLike
The Confederate peace commissions are the load of hooey, because they demanded the unacceptable: acquiescence to secession and recognition of confederation.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter what the Confederate peace commisioners demanded — it is called negotiation. They were met by Buchanan and Lincoln.
LikeLike
Robert Tombs certainly realized the result of secession.
Correct George, the issue of slavery was settled for the time being for the United States. The South however, were more passionate about that issue.
LikeLike
Rob slavery can be arguged several ways with the EP and West Virginia thrown into the mix. At this time just take the issue of slavery and secession. Yes slavery was a cause of secession, I have said that many times. No argument there. With secession and boundaries set slavery wasn’t going anyplace. The issue of slavery woulda, coulda, shoulda been setteled for the US.However slavery was still legal under the Constitution. Now consider this, The United States made no effort to eliminate slavery within its boundaries as the South seceeded.They did however pass an admenmdment to protect slavery hoping the South would return to the Union. It doesn’t sound to me like the US was totally against slavery at the time of secession or the South was more passionate..
LikeLike
The United States left it to various states and federal proclamations to decide on the issue of slavery. These laws sided heavily with containment and limitation of the institution. This was one of the points of tension, or what the South saw as an ‘attack’ on the institution of slavery. To provide this tu quoque argument in order to change the focus is just silly. I’m talking about why the South seceded and the importance of the issue of slavery. I’m not touching on the legality of slavery in the U.S. at this time.
You’re right. They passed an amendment protecting slavery. This further proves the importance of slavery to the South, that northern politicians would attempt to create a compromise amendment to entice them to stay.
Keep stacking those straws George. I never said the U.S. was “totally against slavery.” However, the South was definitely more passionately, they seceded over the issue after all.
LikeLike
Slavery was still legal in the United States regardless of what the states did. The spread of slavery or more specfic Negroes, into the territories became the rub. Slavery could have ended in the US at the time of secession but it did not. I have already gone over this with you.
“You’re right. They passed an amendment protecting slavery. This further proves the importance of slavery to the South, that northern politicians would attempt to create a compromise amendment to entice them to stay”
Well the departed didn’t return to the US because of that admn did they? That proves the slavery wasn’t the issue for them, but it does serve to prove the importance the US placed on them. Why were they so important Rob? Tell us. Was it because of the money they brought to the US treasurey??.
If the war was about slavery, why was the US willing to give these states slavery to return to the Union? Why would the Confederates fight for something being given to them??? The issue was money.
let me add this quote from Lincoln about the territories—-
“Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home—may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil, and better their condition in life_ I am in favor of this not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over—in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their condition in life”
LikeLike
Don’t care about the legality of slavery in the U.S., what I care about is the South and why political leaders at that time felt slavery was being attacked. They cited this over and over again, fought it in Congress and seceded because of it.
The seceded states knew that an amendment could be amended further, as was done in regards to prohibition in the 20th century. Southern leaders also knew that it was unlikely such an amendment would be ratified by other states, in addition to the fact that the Confederate Government was already in place. Keep in mind as well, usually the South reached a compromise over issues in which they threatened secession. In the Corwin Amendment, the offer was the status quo and without Southern gains. The South, time and time again, expressed distrust over Lincoln and the Republicans. Southern leaders viewed Republicans as the party that would end slavery.
No, the South added very little to the U.S. Treasury. The tariffs in the South were abysmal. The entire port revenue out of the South didn’t equal New York.
Many northern political leaders sought to maintain the union through various reasons. A lot of them are ideological. As far as the northern public, it is widely held that after Fort Sumter, northern public opinion, viewed the North as under attack given that the South fired the first shots and seized federal property. Prior to that the firing on Fort Sumter, only the deep South seceded, not the entirety of the South. So many saw this is the same event that occurred in the 1820s and 30s. Bare in mind that political leaders of the time also had a collective memory of the havoc and anarchy of the Napoleonic Wars. Both Sherman and Lincoln at one point reasoned that secession was essentially anarchy which would destroy the nation. Thinking back on the histories of the North Georgia, East Tennessee, and other places which fought internal civil wars during the national Civil War; they might be right.
In short, to answer your redundant questions. The South did not trust the North on the issue of slavery. This was extended especially to Lincoln. This is expressed in papers, letters and legislation of the time. Short of Lincoln promising to allow slavery to expand into the midwest, it is unlikely the South would have felt secure in the institution regardless. They seceded to protect an institution which the entirety of the southern social order was based on. To secure this, they began seizing federal property throughout the south in an attempt to solidify dominance over their new country. This reached a stand-off at Ft. Sumter, where the U.S. military would not surrender federal property. The South was forced into a position to act (start war or admit to wrong doing [secession], with other Southern states watching). They fired, which brought the North down in retaliation.
Great Lincoln quote, it really expresses his “Free Soil” attitudes, but it does little to further this discussion. It only serves to detract and point the finger at something else. I’d love to see you actually present this type of argument in a historical conference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And I don’t care about the secession docs. TYhey have been proven to be meaningless. Still slavery was legal in the US, there is no denying that fact.
The South was wealthy and the North wanted this tax money, that is mentioned in the secession docs. I have some very good info posted at
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2011091.0#post_2011109
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2009377.post
that proves my point. I suggest reading the PDF posted . It will take some time but I think it is worth the effort.
As I have said before slavery was given to the seceeding states, they yad no reason to fight for that institution. The Federall wanted these states back again.
Now I asked you a simple question, why did the Federal government place such value on the Sseceeded atstes and wanted to bring them back into the Union? You did not give an answer. Perhaps the little passage below will answer the question for you.
Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 09:46AM
Posts: 3268
“What then would become of my tariff?” Abraham Lincoln.
This question by President Lincoln has been lately looked for by several of this board and lost to memory, below is where it originated and where it is referenced.
Mr. Seward, of the peace-faction, sent Allen B. McGruder, as confidential messenger to Richmond, to hold an interview with Mr. Janney (president of the convention), Mr. Stuart, Col. Baldwin, and other influential men of the ruling “Union party.” Mr. Seward said that secrecy was all important, and while it was extremely desirable that one of them should see Lincoln, it was equally important that the public should know nothing of the interview. Col. Baldwin responded to the invitation, since, though one of the ablest men of the convention, he was known personally to but few in Washington, having never served in Federal politics. He repaired to Washington as soon as possible, went in a closed carriage to Seward, and from there, in his company, to the White House. But in this short time the policy of the administration had. undergone a change. Seven Republican governors of Northern and North-eastern States representing the ” stiff-backed ” clique had descended on the government, and won the victory over Seward and the rest. With the ignorance of the South, which I am sorry to say is still prevalent with many Northern writers, they represented to Mr. Lincoln that the people of the South were not in earnest; that all their speeches, resolutions, and declarations of resistance were but a “game of brag;” that Virginia and the Border States would never leave the Union; that it would ruin the North to have a free-trade people to the South of them; that it would be but an easy job to conquer the cotton States, etc., etc. Mr. Lincoln, who had vacillated between the parties, found the combined pressure of office-seekers -and tariff-men too much for him; and when Col. Baldwin arrived he had gone over to the stiff-backed men, bag and baggage. But Mr. Lincoln gave him a most private interview, and the latter quickly dispossessed him of his erroneous impressions regarding the intentions of the Border States, who looked to Virginia as their leader. Lincoln’s native good sense, under the influence of Col. Baldwin’^ evident sincerity, immediately grasped the truth. He clutched his shaggy hair, as though he would jerk out handfulls by the roots; he frowned and contorted his features, exclaiming: “I ought to have known this sooner! You are too late, sir, too late! Why did you not come here four days ago, and tell me all this?” turning almost fiercely upon Col. Baldwin. Baldwin replied: “Why, Mr. President, you did not ask our advice. Be sides, as soon as we received permission to tender it, I came by the first train as fast as steam would bring me.” Lincoln rejoined: “Yes, but you are too late, I tell you, too late!” Col. Baldwin pleaded the question with him as he never did a case on behalf of a client in jeopardy of life. One* single step would be sufficient to paralyze the secession movement. This was a simple proclamation, repudiating the right of coercing sovereign States by force of arms, and to rely upon conciliation to bring them back into the Union, as had been the course pursued with respect to Rhode Island and North Carolina in 1790. It was a contradiction to suppose that any State would voluntarily abnegate Union except under conviction of real wrong. The question of the Territories had no such importance in the eyes of the Border States to urge them into secession, but coercion would be universally considered the casus belli. Lincoln seemed impressed by Baldwin’s eloquence and solemnity, and asked: “But what am I to do meantime with those men at Montgomery? Am I to let them go on?” “Yes, sir,” replied Col. Baldwin decidedly, “until they can be peacefully brought back.” “And open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry with their ten per cent, tariff? What then would become of my tariff?” This last question he announced with such emphasis as showed in his view that it decided the whole matter.
Memoir of a Narrative Received of Colonel John B. Baldwin, of Staunton, Touching the Origin of the War. By Rev. R. L. Dabney, D. D.
The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Lyon G. Tyler, Richmond, 1885.
The Southern Historical Society Papers, Vol. I, Jan. to June, 1876.
Jefferson Davis, by Armistead C. Gordon, 1918.
William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine: Vol. 27, Page 224, 1918
Lives of Distinguished North Carolinians, 1898
The New Republic: Vol. 17, 1918
Confederate Veteran: Vol. 25, Issue 10, 1917
LikeLike
George, you should care about the documents because they are important. They demonstrate not the efforts of individuals, but of collective assemblies to willfully rebel against the United States for specific purposes. These assemblies stated their preferred reasons for secession, and the dominant topic is always slavery. It doesn’t matter if slavery was legal in the United States at that time. No one is arguing the contrary. What matters is that the South felt the institution was under attack, that slave state political power was hemmed and that the election of Lincoln was a vital threat.
The South’s wealth was lagging behind the North’s. This is especially true in regards to tariffs. Despite the fact that a few Southern states had issues with the tariffs, they were never in unison on the issue. In fact, some Southern states benefited from the tariffs, which is why the did not follow S.C. in the 1830s.
http://eh.net/database/u-s-customs-house-data-1854-59/
Posting an opinionated newspaper article, and a cherry picked portion of a speech that undoubtedly included more than what you copied and pasted, are not adequate sources in order to frame an argument. Additionally, the demonstrate opinions of single men, which is no weight outweighs legislative mandates.
The South had every reason to fight for slavery. Their economy, social order, etc. was all based on the institution. Subsequent pleas, arguments, and opinions were published by various southern leaders on the institutions importance and the threats on the institution by the North. It brought conflict on numerous occasions leading up to the civil war. It was a point of tension during the Revolution, during the Constitutional Convention, during the 1st and 2nd Seminole wars, the Texas Revolution, after the Mexican-American War and the settlement of the West. Conflict nearly boiled over on numerous occasions (Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Bleeding Kansas). The list goes on and on George.
I actually provided a plethora of answers…I can’t help it if you cannot read.
This discussion between Lincoln has been rehashed time and time again. Too bad it is entirely a secondary account of something Lincoln might have said. You know, it’s hilarious you question the validity of A. Stephen’s Cornerstone Speech (even though Stevens admits that he spoke to the reporter and that the reporter changed variances in the account which did not include slavery), but you don’t approach anything that affirms your ill-thoughtout arguments with the same skepticism. Way to by objective…
LikeLike
Thank you, Rob (and Jimmy, and Michael). We have well and truly exhausted this thread. I am closing it. (Truly this time!)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chris, Thank you for letting me post facts. Someone without a biased view of the Confederacy will take them and do more reserach and wthyey will find the truth.
Folks if you want facts and not opinions please visit Cold Southyern Steel or Southern heritage Advancement Preservation and Education.
be safe and have a Dixie day.
George Purvis
LikeLike
The problem is that George is not using the facts the way they happened. He makes the claim that secession settled slavery. No, it did not. The CW settled slavery. Secession was caused by slavery which led to a war when Jefferson Davis realized things were not going the way he needed them to go. No slavery, no civil war.
He is also repeating the Beardian claim about economics being the cause of the CW. That is erroneous, but a fixture of the Lost Cause belief system.
Then he makes the claim that Anderson’s move to Sumter was an act of war. Wrong again. An officer of the US Army did not have to answer to trash who called themselves confederates. They had NO legal power over him whatsoever. Yet, George ignores this because to him the South was justified in their illegal rebellion. That’s where problems are occurring. Secession was unconstitutional. The actions of the lower south in seceding were illegal. Until he gets that through his head, he will not be doing anything but lying to people because he is trying to develop a history constructed on a false foundation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now you are just spinning history. I also used the term common sense. Give me your mailing address and I’ll send you a pound
LikeLike
George,
Lincoln was pretty smart. He never met with any confederate peace commissioners. He knew to do so would give the traitors a veneer of legitimacy which they had not earned nor ever would. Stop making crap up and trying to pass it off as fact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just another typical Jimmy Dick comment.
Lincoln himself may not have met with the peace commissioners but someone representing him did. Perhaps it was Scott. We will find out
What I am post is only crap because you can’t prove it wrong.
LikeLike
Wrong again, George. No one representing Lincoln met with any peace commissioners. He refused to allow it. Stop making up stuff and lying to people about to promote your erroneous ideology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
George is trying to argue that the USA’s goal in 1860-1 wasn’t to rid the USA of slavery. He’s basically saying that if the USA’s goal was really slavery eradication in the USA, wouldn’t acquiescing to secession have advanced the country towards that goal by ridding the USA of those slave states that declared secession?
George’s argument is moot because everyone already knows and has stipulated (1) that the USA’s goal in 1860-1 wasn’t to rid the USA of slavery and (2) that the USA’s goals in 1860-1 were (1) to put down the slave state insurrection of the so-called seceded states, (2) to keep the country together, and (3) to put the country on a course where slavery would eventually be eliminated by immediately stopping the spread of slavery into the federal territories.
George wants to say that two sides in any conflict must have one and only one exactly opposing reason. Regarding the slave state insurrection, the slave states that insurrected were afraid of losing slavery and were greedy for it to spread. No matter how frequently Lincoln said that despite his strong anti-slavery beliefs they wouldn’t lose slavery in their states with him as President, they were never palliated.
Lincoln, keeping his eye on his 3 goals listed above, put down the slave state insurrection when the insurrection turned violent, at Ft. Sumter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have posted docs. proving that slavery wasn’t the casue of the war. I have posted docs that ptrove the US was willing to give the seceeded states slavery to come back to the Union. Alsso I have provided proof that Sumter was the issue that brought war to this country.
The best you can do is tell people youir opinion.
So how about you provide some docs
1. that prove the goal of the US in 1860 was to stop slavery.by going to war
2. a doc that proves the Confederacy was fighting for the preservation of slavery.and not independence
3. doc that says the goal of the US in 1861 was to free the slaves.
Bring the docs on. You wany to be the wonder boy and run your mouth let’s see you put up some real facts.
LikeLike
That probably has lot to do with your documents not proving anything about the war’s causes. You just think they do, and you’re sticking to that inaccurate assertion.
1.) He just told you that the U.S. policy was not to go to war to stop slavery. You are creating a straw-man argument by continuing to suggest that he is. Get this through that thick head George; no one is saying that the north went to war to end slavery.
2.) Why? Every time someone posts articles that definitively prove the main cause of the war, you dismiss the documents suggesting that secession is not war. You fail to recognize that war is merely policy by other means. The South went to war, to defend their act of secession, which was driven by slavery. When the country is at war, Jefferson Davis addresses the Confederate Congress about the conflict while giving them a history lesson of the repeated offenses of the north towards slavery. Easily connectable. When the state’s policy of secession to defend slavery did not pan out, they results to armed conflict to achieve the same ends.
3.) That’s a redundant question. Why ask the same thing twice? See number one again.
Does the home know your left the premises?
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you could prove any of my docs wrong, you would have already done it. I would suppose you think the next best thing is to insult.
LikeLike
See George, this is an example of how you have no understanding of historical analysis. It is literally impossible to prove a historical document “wrong.” One might, however, prove content within a document as wrong. But the document remains evidence of something (opinion, fact, lying, etc.) just the same. What is wrong, and what has been proven wrong by numerous people on various threads, is that your interpretation of historical documents is wrong.
LikeLike
You proved Ft. Sumter was trigger, which everyone already knew.
1. No such docs.
2. Independence was goal, slavery — specifically securing and expanding — was reason. Docs = declarations of secession and every single other doc each and every one of them without exception including every single doc you posted — from 1776 to 1861.
3. No such docs.
Pleasure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you cannot bring the docs proving the South went to war over the institution of slavery then your argumenti s useless.
No if expanding tslavery was the reasobn for war then the Confederate states would have taken the offer to return to the US. The boundaries of slavery was limited when they seceeded. That stands to reason.
3. No docs no cigar. Isn’t it amazing I can produce docs to back up my statements????? What is more amazing I produce these historical documents, that most here have never read or heard of, and instead of folks taking them and learning they tell me the docs are wrong. Unbelieveable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
I did put up real facts proving my point and so did you. Your problem is you are trying to make them say what they don’t. YOU ARE WRONG. You have been proven wrong. Get it through your head. You can’t even analyze the facts like the secession documents because you know they prove you wrong. You are not a historian. Stop pretending to be one.
LikeLike
I am not trying to make any doc. say anything that is not written in them. It is all in English and I am sure everyone here has a good command of that language.
The docs i put up are specfic abot the war and the cause. The secession docs you put up, one must stretch them to the absolute breaking point to even get to war and that is without any real cause.
LikeLike
Come on, George! Are you going to make the idiotic statement that has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the South financed the North with its exports dead wrong? Are you that stupid? Come on! Whip out those facts! Because when you do you’ll be buried under the actual facts. The tariff issue is pure bullcrap. The facts prove that beyond any chance of contestation. When are you going to stop trying to pass off this Lost Cause mythology as fact?
Grow up. Quit lying to people with that weak ass crap of yours that falls apart like Confederate flag toilet paper in a rain storm. You have yet to prove anything. Most of the facts you put on here prove you wrong. That’s just ignorance on your part to keep repeating yourself. Every time you post on here you make yourself look dumber than the time before.
LikeLike
Rob, he can’t go to a real historical conference because he would get laughed out of the room. That is also why he cannot get a degree in history. He would not pass the classes because he refuses to let the facts speak for themselves. He cannot unlearn in order to relearn because that would conflict with his beliefs which are not based upon factual evidence.
In other words, he is a typical neo-confederate who refuses to accept reality for what it is.
LikeLike
Well,I got the best of you — but then you are no real historian either.
LikeLike
Really? A guy who blows off the secession docs saying they are meaningless? That is your ignorance showing through. You reject anything that shows you are wrong. That is just you being stupid.
George, you got owned on this thread multiple times by several people and you still make the same stupid ignorant claims. You want a doc? Start reading books and throw your Lost Cause handbook in the trash. If you can’t read Dew and see where you are wrong then you are beyond redemption. You have not read Dew though. You will not read anything that shows you are wrong. You ignore the facts and then throw stuff out there totally out of context.
Your Lincoln line about the tariffs? That’s a joke. It has been ripped apart multiple times and yet here you are again tossing it out there as fact. I’d ask how stupid you are, but you just proved it with that so called fact. We’ve shown you that the tariff was not the factor you want it to be, but you keep on saying it was. That is your ignorance.
I’m done with you and your stupidity. Every historian on this thread has shown you to be wrong and you can’t admit it. That is insanity on your part. This is Chris’s blog, but if it was mine you would be long gone because you fail every time you post.
LikeLike
With the neconfederate absurdity reaching full circle, it’s time to close the threads and to remember what Mr. Larry Wilmore said in the video that the post introduced. The South didn’t invent slavery but held on to it like crazy. And so….
The single issue about which the war was fought was not the existence of slavery but the expansion of slavery. The goal of the USA was to expand in a way that would eventually extinguish slavery, while the goal of the states that declared secession and operated under the Confederacy was to expand in a way that would immediately inculcate slavery.
For more information and relevant docs see the post that Chris wrote for George; it’s the next post at the true blue federalist. Best to all.
LikeLike
Since George wants to bring in that weakass Williams and DiLorenzo stuff, let’s see a good quote from Andy Hall on the subject as he was busy ripping new assholes in neo-confederates over on civilwartalk last year.
“But I do know this: craptacular “historians” like Walter Williams, who claimed that “Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859,” and Tom DiLorenzo, whose first edition of The Real Lincoln (2002) claimed that “in 1860 the Southern states were paying in excess of 80 percent of all tariffs. . . .” should rightfully be laughed out of any faculty meeting, professional conference or opium den where people take history seriously.”
good old George has been throwing the tariff around since at least 2010 and lied to a lot of people. Fortunately those with facts were able to prove George was wrong. Why? Because George uses made up stuff or quotes out of context like his hero DiLorenzo does.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and here is a link to the map on those famous and extensive revenues generated in the South courtesy of Andy Hall as well. Next time you should check your sources for accuracy George, because you used on that is false.
http://deadconfederates.com/2013/02/26/visualizing-tariff-revenues/
LikeLiked by 1 person