 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Clem -
Exactly! Slavery did not have overwhelming support in the South, it was mainly a "vice" of the aristocracy. Had abolitionists moved South and voted with other opponents to end it, slavery would not have survived.
.
Those busybodies got alot of people killed. And slavery was not crucial to all southern states, only a few.
I'd rather be a slave with the chance to escape than condemn 600,000 people to their deaths for my freedom.
Dr Strangelove -
First, did you read the article? Lincoln did more than just rally the North, he imprisoned many for not jumping on board the bandwagon and used other dictatorial tactics to suppress his opposition. And his reaction is what pushed the other southern states into secession. As for firing the first shot, the Constitution did not empower Congress to maintain facilities in foreign countries or prevent states from seceding. Therefore, maintaining and supplying the fort was illegal. The South even offered to pay for those federal facilities, but Lincoln rejected their offer and the Constitution.
DinoDoc -
If you're talking about Sherman and the Lieber whatever, what is it? When southern armies invaded the border or northern states, they did not engage in total war. Sherman did! |
Slavery was NOT about to die out! The last two years before the War were bumper years for the South. The South essentially controlled the world's cotton markets. Entrepreneurs in France and England had long dreamed of developing alterate sources in India and the Middle East, but as long as cotton from the US was relatively cheap and abundant none were willing to risk it. During the Civil War these men got a chance to expedite their plans, resulting in sources outside the US that were more than competitive with Southern cotton. This was the major cause of the south's inability to recover economically.
The majority of slave owning households owned only 2 or 3 slaves. About a third of a million southern households owned slaves. The white population of the south was 9 million. I'd guess that translated into between one and a half to two million households, so about one-fifth to one-sixth of all white southern families owned slaves. This segment of the population had plenty of relatives. Odds were that if you didn't own a slave some first or second order relative did. In a pinch you could probably borrow one. No, slavery wasn't going anywhere.
The US isn't empowered to own property in foreign countries? Wow, we'd better close our embassies! They're illegal! Golly, no wonder them Arab fellers is always trying to blow 'em up! They're just helping out!
Where in the article does it say that Lincoln began imprisoning his detractors prior to "the other Southern states" succeeding?
You'd rather just take your chances on escping slavery instead of other people risking their lives to destroy it? Well Gee! How big of you! Tell you what Berzerker, you can come back here and say that when you're Black! I mean that's just disgusting! I am so glad that the human race is not entirely made up of people like you.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Oh, and actually southern forces were known to conduct "total war" during some of their incursions into Union territory, particularily those in the western theater. Have you ever heard of Quantrel? Other expeditions into Missouri and Kentucky were also rather brutal and destructive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The shots were fired by a garrison attempting to defend themselves and their post from seizure. Would you have me believe MtG that had you been in a similar situation, with an armed mob of so called state militia attempting to seize your post, you would have just surrendered your post? |
As a lieutenant without orders, and with four forts to "defend" with a "garrison" of thirty-odd men, from a group of hothead civilians acting in what was a rather loud political protest, I would have avoided armed confrontation, in the absense of controlling orders to the contrary.
quote:
As far as the coastal forts themselves, their construction was part of a 30+ year long national defense program solely funded by the Federal government. |
Yes, through some of those same tariffs the south hated so much. In fact one of the more prolific builders of these forts was a young engineering officer named Robert E. Lee 
quote:
If the land was deeded to the US then it was US land wasn't it? |
In general, it wasn't deeded to the US - there was no provision in the Constitution for the US to acquire lands from within the lands of a sovereign state without state consent. With later states which first started as US territories, the land issues tend much more strongly to weigh in favor of the Federal government. That is not the case with Fort Sumter, for example.
quote:
I suppose that in a crisis there might have been some state militia deployed to the forts, but undoubtedly under Federal command. |
The majority would have had to have been state troops, or else the majority of forts not serviced (as was the case - the 30 year building program was a collosal waste) - and assuming the states and the Federal government agreed, there would be no problem with Federal command. However, the Privileges and Immunities Clause and other parts of the Constitution fully recognize both Federal and State sovereignty in many areas.
quote:
State militias units were the majority of units deployed by the United States in the Civil War. Are you saying that these troops weren't Federal troops? |
Actually, they generally weren't militia for several reasons - the two biggest being the political patronage state governers could gain by handing out majorities and colonelcies to their friends, and the very questionable authority of Lincoln to nationalize the state militias under the circumstances following Ft. Sumter.
In general, only brigade and higher staffs were truly Federal troops - state governers still had say over regimental promotions, or promotions were often by election within the regiment, payment of bonuses and other enlistment issues were generally determined at the state level, and Federal troops had unit name distinctions that clarified their Federal status - the 1st and 2nd United States Sharpshooters, 1st US Artillery, United States Colored Troops, etc. All in all, it was a very convoluted and ineffiencient command structure, precisely because the US government had to pay close attention to the sensibilities (and remaining sense of sovereignty) of many states still in the Union.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Orange - quote:
The same paradox exists if you claim they never left the union for re-admittance, and then claim that they were soveirgn nation to justify their secession. |
I didn't say they never left the Union. I said they did, therefore they were a separate nation. The paradox exists with those who claim they never left but had to be re-admitted.
quote:
No, I did not say that. I said that it is morally acceptable for one nation to assist in the overthrow of a moral wrong such as slavery. I suppose this is more ends vs. means. Again, I do not support the draft...but that is not what we had been arguing about at the time. |
You said the North had the moral right to overthrow slavery in the South within the context of the historical reality that this was achieved by sacrificing 600,000 people.
quote:
You're taking what I said out of context. At the time, we were not discussing Lincoln. I understand that the article mentions these things, but I have not commented on them. Therefore I did not understand what I was being accused of by Imran. I have, however, stated time and time again that I am not ignorant to Lincoln's flaws. |
Okay, but I thought you asked for evidence that Lincoln had deprived people of their civil liberties because Imran pointed out that Bush was being criticized for allegedly doing the same thing by some Apolytoners. Not important...
quote:
What's worse, his example made it seem like 600,000 were dying for one slave, but this was not the case. |
What's worse is you didn't read the question posed to me by Snowfire. Go back and read it before jumping into Strangelove's BS. If you guys would have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people for your freedom, the problem lies with you, not me.
Guynemer - quote:
You're right; I overstepped myself. I apologize; it is no excuse, but I had a massive neuroscience exam this morning, and I was a but stressed out by it.
HOWEVER, I stand by my conviction that you are stunningly full of ****. |
I still don't understand your objection to anything I posted. Why don't you explain why I am "stunningly full of ****". Kind of hard to defend oneself when a "critic" just calls you names...
Dr Strangelove - quote:
Slavery was NOT about to die out! The last two years before the War were bumper years for the South. The South essentially controlled the world's cotton markets. Entrepreneurs in France and England had long dreamed of developing alterate sources in India and the Middle East, but as long as cotton from the US was relatively cheap and abundant none were willing to risk it. During the Civil War these men got a chance to expedite their plans, resulting in sources outside the US that were more than competitive with Southern cotton. This was the major cause of the south's inability to recover economically. |
And I believe it would have died out thru pressure. The war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over tariffs. That's why it was a major Eastern seaboard port - Charleston - that led the way. If Lincoln did not react the way he did, only a few states would have seceded with the west remaining in the Union. With the addition of US territories as states, only a few slave states would have left the Union. That isolation and economic pressure would have spelled the end of slavery. But this is all irrelevant since neither of us really know, what we do know is that 600,000 people died, and that raises the question: is it moral to sacrifice other people to end slavery?
quote:
The majority of slave owning households owned only 2 or 3 slaves. |
Which is why pressure would have been effective, most southerners either had no slaves or very few.
quote:
About a third of a million southern households owned slaves. The white population of the south was 9 million. I'd guess that translated into between one and a half to two million households, so about one-fifth to one-sixth of all white southern families owned slaves. This segment of the population had plenty of relatives. Odds were that if you didn't own a slave some first or second order relative did. In a pinch you could probably borrow one. No, slavery wasn't going anywhere. |
I'm not sure how you went from 1/3 million households to 1 1/2-2 million households. The clear trend in the "west" was the abolition of slavery, and had it not been for Lincoln's policies, no states would have seceded. And if not for his reaction, only 4-6 states would have seceded.
quote:
The US isn't empowered to own property in foreign countries? Wow, we'd better close our embassies! They're illegal! Golly, no wonder them Arab fellers is always trying to blow 'em up! They're just helping out! |
Did the US just go around the world putting embassies everywhere? No, those countries were empowered to allow us to have embassies, we weren't "empowered" to put them there. Sheesh, your sarcasm is misplaced and illogical.
quote:
Where in the article does it say that Lincoln began imprisoning his detractors prior to "the other Southern states" succeeding? |
Who said he did this "prior" to the secession? Not me.
quote:
You'd rather just take your chances on escping slavery instead of other people risking their lives to destroy it? Well Gee! How big of you! Tell you what Berzerker, you can come back here and say that when you're Black! I mean that's just disgusting! I am so glad that the human race is not entirely made up of people like you. |
Are you behaving snotty and dense for a reason? I didn't say I would not welcome others trying to free me, I said I would oppose requiring 600,000 people to die for my freedom. And since when does this have anything to do with being black? Slaves have come in all colors, and since I'm white, skin color is irrelevant. If you have a grudge, go vent somewhere else.
quote:
Oh, and actually southern forces were known to conduct "total war" during some of their incursions into Union territory, particularily those in the western theater. Have you ever heard of Quantrel? Other expeditions into Missouri and Kentucky were also rather brutal and destructive. |
Read the thread, I already mentioned Quantrill. I said there were renegades in the west. I happen to live near where he went on a rampage. But the main CSA army(s) did not engage in this behavior when they had the chance, Sherman did. Whatever the South did after Sherman started waging total war has to be viewed in light of his conduct.
Dinodoc - quote:
The Lieber code was law of war under which the Union opperated under and governed the conduct the Union army during its prosecution of the war. Here's the text of the code. |
If Sherman's behavior was "legal", why ask if he violated the law? The Nazis committed acts classified as "war crimes", did the fact they committed them "legally" (in accordance with their laws) mean they weren't war crimes? Apparently the winner gets to define war crimes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Orange -
I didn't say they never left the Union. I said they did, therefore they were a separate nation. The paradox exists with those who claim they never left but had to be re-admitted. |
Well, I can argue the legality/morality of the issue whethere you chose they were a soverign nation or not. If you want to say that the Union doesn't justify their claims because they say the south never left, but force them to be readmitted - fine, I'd agree that it doesn't make sense. But not that it was immoral/illegal.
quote:
You said the North had the moral right to overthrow slavery in the South within the context of the historical reality that this was achieved by sacrificing 600,000 people. |
To me this isn't about the draft. I disagree with the draft, but I am proud of the US entrance into World War II, and if that is liberating people from a moral evil, than so be it. I may not agree with the exact way the the north went about the war, or that the United States went about World War II, but I'm more than happy about the ends. I can argue about the legality and morality of the war from the north's prospective. The means that they went about it are an entirely different issue.
quote:
Okay, but I thought you asked for evidence that Lincoln had deprived people of their civil liberties because Imran pointed out that Bush was being criticized for allegedly doing the same thing by some Apolytoners. Not important... |
Yes, I misunderstood what he was saying and he misunderstood what I was asking. It was just miscommunication, that's all.
quote:
What's worse is you didn't read the question posed to me by Snowfire. Go back and read it before jumping into Strangelove's BS. If you guys would have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people for your freedom, the problem lies with you, not me. |
No I understand what you're saying. You're saying that as a black slave you wouldn't want to know that 600,000 people were being violently killed for your own freedom. However, the slaves are not responsible for this war and should not have blame forced on them. Some of them were fighting for their own freedom against many many difficulties, and if the north came along and supported them, they can hardly be blamed for the outcome. I say that if anyone should be blamed, it's the south for allowing slavery to exist. They allowed the anger to be built up among its people (slaves).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
If Sherman's behavior was "legal", why ask if he violated the law? |
You were the one calling him a war criminal. I was merely asking the basis for that assertion.
Edit: I forgot to add that the German's did recognize the Geneva Convention. They just neglected to actually follow it themselves.
Last edited by DinoDoc on 19-02-2002 at 19:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
IIRC in the 1860s the US government had two major sources of income: tarriffs and the sale of Federal lands. You're claiming that Lincoln was going to raise tarriffs. I've got to ask why? Was he going to increase some aspect of Federal spending? Which?
When you say that slavery was dieing out in the west, was this not because new states were allowed to choose whether to permit slavery or not? The new states in the west were choosing to ban slavery because they were being settled by a majority from non-slave states. Of course we're all aware that pro-slavery interests took some extereme measures in an attempt to rectify that situation. If you looked back at southern newspapers in the late 1850s you'd find numerous examples where southern editors actually took exception to the use of Federal troops to protect innocent settlers from pro-slavery thugs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
IIRC in the 1860s the US government had two major sources of income: tarriffs and the sale of Federal lands. You're claiming that Lincoln was going to raise tarriffs. I've got to ask why? |
Primarily, to give domestic industry a crutch. And raising tariffs was actually one of the first thing on Lincoln's agenda; a new tarriff law, the Morrell tarriff, was passed in 1861.
quote:
Was he going to increase some aspect of Federal spending? Which |
He did substancially increase, for instance, corporate welfare.
quote:
When you say that slavery was dieing out in the west, was this not because new states were allowed to choose whether to permit slavery or not? The new states in the west were choosing to ban slavery because they were being settled by a majority from non-slave states. |
To paraphrase Webster, geography (God?) determined that the Western territories were going to be free.
If the new territories could support slavery, why is it that the same thing that happened in Kansas, didn't happen in California?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Boy, you guys certainly don't know your US history!
The question of the dissemination of slavery to new territories and states was undoubtedly the paramount question facing the US government in the first half of the 19th century. There were repeated sectarian conflicts in Congress over this question. The fact is that Southerners were unhappy that ANY state had been allowed to ban slavery from it's territory. That's how dedicated they were to "state's rights". I'll provide a link to a speech by J. Preston, one of South Carolina's most prominent secessionists, decrying the "unconstitutional" actions of these northerners below. Prior to the Civil War new states were generally allowed into the Union in pairs, one slavery and one free. The annexation of northern Mexico in 1848 and the subsequent gold rush made that difficult. The majority of peoples moving west were coming from free states simply because New York and Boston were closer to Europe. Immigrants from Ireland, the UK, Germany and Scandinavia entered the US via the North and went directly west.
Slavery didn't become an issue in California because the Mexicans abolished slavery in the 1820s. California was settled rapidly thanks to the gold rush. My guess is that most of the 49s weren't slaveholders, and that any who had been probably sold theirs before moving west.
Was Lincoln not an abolitionist at heart? Here's a quotation from ol' honest Abe in a letter to a southerner: "You think that slavery is right and ought to be expanded; while we think that slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us."
Other clues to the real reason the south suceded include:
The Alabama legislature passed a resolution prior to the 1860 election mandating the conveneing of a convention to consider sucession should their be elected to the presidency "a Black republican".
As I mentioned above John Preston, one of the key players behind South Carolina's act of succession, listed in a speech to the Virginia Assembly prior to Virginia's succession the reason's for South Carolina's succession. He cited the protracted conflict over the extension of slavery into new territories as the first reason. He then went further to proclaim the banning of slavery by eight northern states as being an "unconstitutional" limitation of personal rights. Then he proclaims the admission of 5 western states as free of slavery to have been an "invasion" of southern territory. Evidently the secessionists were willing to allow only the 5 original free states the "constitutional" right to ban slavery within their borders. (In 1861 there were 15 slave states and 18 slave states.)
Links? http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/quotes.html.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/preston.html.
http://memebers.aol.com/jfepperson/AL-appoint.html.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/r...l#SouthCarolina
Another thing about those wonderfully wronged southerners: In his inaugeration speech good ol' Jeff Davis, waxing expansively abotu the future of his new country, proclaimed his intention to see to it that the new nation would eventually get the room for growth it had been denied, specifically by moving south into Mexico. Evidently the thought that ex-slves had the gall to throw off their former masters struck him as just plain wrong, and worthy of righteous punishment.
States Rights? Yeah right! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
You're missing my point. Why didn't pro-slaveryites make the same effort in California that they did in Kansas prior to the Civil War?
The Western territories were decidedly pro-Union. The question whether there would be slavery in the territories becomes totally moot after secession.
I referred to tarriffs, not states' rights. The Southerners selectively used states rights just as much as the Northerners. |
As an answer your question, there weren't a sufficient number of slave owners in California at the time when California asked to join the Union. The trek across the continent was too long and expensive to haul slaves across, particularily when you were going to pan for gold when you got to the other side. In Kansas about 30% of the population supported slavery, enough to make a formidable force, but not enough to contest a referrendum.
As I said earlier in the first half of the 19th century Congress made every effort to ensure that for every free state enrolled into the Union, a slave state was also admitted. This compromise couldn't hold forever, as the further west the Union extended, the greater preponderance of non-slave holders were settling the area. As I said, immigrants headed for open territories tended to enter the the US via northern ports.
The reason that the south didn't bolt when California was admitted to the Union in the 1850s was the Missouri Compromise, an agreement that territories south of 36' 30" would be open to slave holders. This agreement temporarily placated southern opinion. The peace didn't last long, since as these territories became eligible for statehood it became apparent that most would become free states. The US government could hold the territories open to slavers so long as they were still Federal land. Once the territories became states however, the Missouri Compromise no longer had an effect, since the state had the authority to abolish slavery within its borders. When Kansas became eligible for statehood pro-slavery representatives at the statehood convention used a filibuster to prevent the convention from adopting a state constitution that would leave the question of slavery in the state open to a popular vote. They allowed only two versions of the constitution to be put up for a referrendum, one that guarenteed persons already owning slaves the right to keep them, the other version would have made the state a full slve state, but allowed a referrendum to strike it down. In the end the convention adopted the later, and the people of Kansas struck it down as expected.
The links I included in my previous post display the texts of speeches made at various state conventions on secession in 1860 and 1861. While tariffs were mentioned as one cause of the southern states' dissatisfaction, in every document where they are mentioned it seems that they are included as a reason mostly as an afterthought, and were only a small contributing factor in the decision to sucede. In each speech and letter there is a preoccupation with the perception that the spread of anti-slavery sentiment was a threat to the southern way of life.
One more thing. A couple of posts ago I stated that one-sixth to one-fifth of southern households owned slaves. Apparently I was wrong- it was one-third!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Ramo- In brief, the Missouri Compromise was established precisely to allow California admission into the Union.
Up to 1850 the number of free states equaled the number of slave states. This gave the south parity with the north in the Senate. By 1861 the ratio was 18 to 15. Southerners then felt clearly outnumbered, even though their faction would still have been able to block any Constitutional admendemt interfering with their right to own slaves. Face it, paranoia ran rampant through the South in those days. Perhaps it was fueled by guilt.
Last edited by Dr Strangelove on 20-02-2002 at 06:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orange
You mean comp. of 1850 right? |
Yup, the same year that California was admitted into the Union. See above.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-02-2002 10:18
|