Which US PResidents were Horrid?: Part II

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
What I'm saying with slavery, is that had we let the Confederacy exist, who knows how much longer slavery would have existed.

By the way -- slavery was a central issue to westward expansion before the Civil War, and was the central issue during the Civil War.

Originally posted by MrFun
Slavery would not have been abolished under the Confederacy.

Before the Civil War, the Southern states wanted to aggressively expand the institution of slavery in the western territories, Nicragua, Cuba, and Mexico. ... This is the reason why slavery was the central issue, rather than tariffs.

Repetition of an assertion does not constitute proof of an assertion.

[MrFun]

Then present a counter-argument to my points already about the expansion of slavery.

How can you know history, and yet not consider the continuum of the issue over slavery from antebellum decades into the Civil War??

Tariffs was an issue, but just read primary sources, such as letters and newspaper articles from the antebellum period. You will find many, many people debating and arguing over slavery.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Then present a counter-argument to my points already about the expansion of slavery.

Originally posted by Ramo
Due to internal economic pressures, namely the lack of labor fluidity and recent foreign competition (India and Egypt) against the South's primary cash crop, cotton, the South would've eventually passed some form of abolition.

[Ramo]

Slavery would not have been abolished under the Confederacy.

You've yet to show this.

Before the Civil War, the Southern states wanted to aggressively expand the institution of slavery in the western territories, Nicragua, Cuba, and Mexico. ...

Nevermind, of course, that in Mexico, slavery (otherwise known as feudalism) was legal in everything but name (Confederate plantation owners were small potatoes compared to Mexican land-owners), and in Cuba, slavery remained legal until the 1880's.

This is the reason why slavery was the central issue, rather than tariffs.

That proves nothing. Yes, Southerners wanted to annex states dominated by agriculture to achieve parity with the Union in the Senate (to prevent legislation such as tariffs), but that does not show how slavery was the central issue to the Civil War.

Southern politicians were confusing Republicans with the ideology of extreme abolitionists, and decided that secession would be the best way to preserve slavery.

Look at the issue logically. Southerners had nothing to fear from abolitionist forces in the North, but they had everything to fear from mercantilist forces in the North.

Even if the Republicans were pro-abolitionists, they still would not be able to do anything about their ideals.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


Due to internal economic pressures, namely the lack of labor fluidity and recent foreign competition (India and Egypt) against the South's primary cash crop, cotton, the South would've eventually passed some form of abolition.

Maybe. They decided to secede though to retain slavery. Most likely they would have given up on it eventually. How long though since they fought a war to keep it?

Tariffs were the central issue to the Civil War, not slavery.
Tariffs, not abolition, were what Lincoln was campaigning on. Much higher tariff duties, not abolition, were in danger of passing Congress. Tariffs, not abolition, was what the federal gov't had authority to pass.

Have you ever looked at any of the Secession documents. I have and they ALL mention slavery. Tarrifs are barely mentioned in passing and even then not every state did so.

Still Lincoln was wrong to suspend Habeaus Corpus.

I voted for Grant and Taft. Taft because Teddy is my favorite.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


Reconstruction wouldn't have been needed in the first place had the South been able to peacably leave.

Of course that ignores who started the war.

The South didn't even wait for the Electoral College to meet to start the secession.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo


Nevermind, of course, that in Mexico, slavery (otherwise known as feudalism) was legal in everything but name (Confederate plantation owners were small potatoes compared to Mexican land-owners), and in Cuba, slavery remained legal until the 1880's.

Look at the issue logically. Southerners had nothing to fear from abolitionist forces in the North, but they had everything to fear from mercantilist forces in the North.

Even if the Republicans were pro-abolitionists, they still would not be able to do anything about their ideals.

Read copies of primary documents -- newspapers, letters, and telegrams all show that Southern politicians were increasingly, aggresively defending the institution of slavery in the face of increasing abolitionist activity in the North, and in the South.

You misunderstood my argument about expanding slavery. The Southern politicians wanted to take over countries where slavery already existed, so they can establish more plantations for more profits for themselves.

After all the material I have read, I strongly agree with historians who argue that slavery was the main issue before and during the Civil War. I also strongly believe that Southern politicians knew that slavery was being threatened, so secession was the way to go.

[Ethelred]

I also strongly believe that Southern politicians knew that slavery was being threatened, so secession was the way to go.

Easy to believe since they said it.

When I first read the secession documents I was argueing about who started the Civil War and why. I was suprised at how well the evidence was supporting my thesis. While I was pretty sure I could back myself on who started the war I had serious doubts about slavery vs economic causes. Those documents surprised me quite a bit in how clear it was the slavery and slave related issues were the cause.

Does this count as thread jacking?

[Ramo]

Have you ever looked at any of the Secession documents. I have and they ALL mention slavery. Tarrifs are barely mentioned in passing and even then not every state did so.

Yes, and the Confederate argument over secession had always been over the legality of federal actions. Not only were tariffs perfectly legal, they were explicitly mentioned as one of the powers given to Congress in the Constitution. Mentioning tariffs doesn't win legal battles (and ward federal reaction). OTOH, the federal gov't had no power whatsoever to implement abolition. Painting Lincoln and the Republicans as militantly pro-abolition gave the Confederate leaders a huge propaganda edge.

Of course that ignores who started the war.

The South didn't even wait for the Electoral College to meet to start the secession.

How is seceding from the US tantamount to starting a war? It is not prohibited in the Constitution.

Read copies of primary documents -- newspapers, letters, and telegrams all show that Southern politicians were increasingly, aggresively defending the institution of slavery in the face of increasing abolitionist activity in the North, and in the South.

Again, the North could not legally act on any abolitionist sentiments they might've had.

You misunderstood my argument about expanding slavery.

No, you're changing whatever "argument" you previously had after I refuted it (hell, the two arguments are contradictory), into an argument that does not help your case.

The Southern politicians wanted to take over countries where slavery already existed, so they can establish more plantations for more profits for themselves.

Some, undoubtedly did. But that only helps a minority of people, so all or even most Southern politicians could not directly benefit. On the other hand, getting another strongly-agricultural state could prevent the North from implementing harsher tariff duties, helping just about everyone in the South.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo

Yes, and the Confederate argument over secession had always been over the legality of federal actions. Not only were tariffs perfectly legal, they were explicitly mentioned as one of the powers given to Congress in the Constitution. Mentioning tariffs doesn't win legal battles (and ward federal reaction). OTOH, the federal gov't had no power whatsoever to implement abolition. Painting Lincoln and the Republicans as militantly pro-abolition gave the Confederate leaders a huge propaganda edge.

Yes propaganda is the operative word there. Lincoln had promised he would NOT free the slaves if that would save the Union. Of course the Southern emphasis on state rights was so they could supress human rights. Pretty much every time some shouts states rights its over state laws resticting the rights of the people of the state.

The South of course had no problem with FORCING new states to become slave states. Texas for one. Many of the complaints in the secession documents were infact over their desire to retain a strong voice in the Senate and to do so they wanted tp force slavery on new states.

How is seceding from the US tantamount to starting a war? It is not prohibited in the Constitution.

Well that isn't what I was talking about regarding the start of the war. The secession itself was neither legal nor ilegal so Lincoln had serious problem when he came into office. However the South made his legal position for him. The South started the war by starting the shooting.

The side that starts the shooting is starting the war in nearly every war. The only time the side that starts the shooting isn't responsible for the war is when its clearly just a matter of time till the other side starts the war. Which is not the case here. The North did not start to prepare for war untill after the South did. Lincoln promised that he would not start the war and he kept that promise. What he would have done if the South had excercised restraint is unknown.

So the South not only seceeded they started the shooting thereby starting the war and put Lincoln on solid legal and moral grounds to wage war with the Confederacy.

Again, the North could not legally act on any abolitionist sentiments they might've had.

Right so what real justification did the South have to secede and then start a war? As rebel states Lincoln no longer had to worry about a lot of legalities.

[Ramo]

Yes propaganda is the operative word there.

Yep, that's why I wrote it.

Lincoln had promised he would NOT free the slaves if that would save the Union.

No ****. And that is why the South did not secede to preserve slavery.

Of course the Southern emphasis on state rights was so they could supress human rights. Pretty much every time some shouts states rights its over state laws resticting the rights of the people of the state.

I only mentioned federal tariffs (which do restrict the rights of the people of the US, BTW), not states' rights.

States rights, like abolition, was a bullshit reason for seceding. It made for good propaganda.

Many of the complaints in the secession documents were infact over their desire to retain a strong voice in the Senate and to do so they wanted tp force slavery on new states.

The Western territories were strongly pro-Union. After secession, they would by free states anyways.

The South started the war by starting the shooting.

Nope, US troops fired on southern civilians on January 8, 1861, outside Fort Barrancas in Florida (a few months before Fort Sumter). The North fired the first shot in the war.

Right so what real justification did the South have to secede and then start a war? As rebel states Lincoln no longer had to worry about a lot of legalities.

Again, the "real" justification would be tariffs.

[loinburger]

As rebel states Lincoln no longer had to worry about a lot of legalities.

Exactly! It was counter-productive for the South to secede if their only goal was to preserve slavery. Ergo, there must have been another reason for seceding, namely tariffs.

If the South had only wanted to keep their slaves, then they would have stayed in the Union. Why secede and risk a war if you can not secede and still keep slavery? The argument that they seceded in order to preserve slavery (and that the war was therefore primarily over slavery) doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by loinburger
The argument that they seceded in order to preserve slavery (and that the war was therefore primarily over slavery) doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Blame Johnny Reb. They are the ones that put it forth in the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery and all that rot.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo



No ****. And that is why the South did not secede to preserve slavery.

Funny how the people that actually did the seceding didn't agree with you. You didn't really read the documents. Perhaps you only read the one for Texas. Its the least blatent about it being because of slavery. Perhaps because they were an independent nation for a while.

I only mentioned federal tariffs (which do restrict the rights of the people of the US, BTW), not states' rights.

Well the secession documents DON'T mention tarriffs. Not the four I have seen. Not even the one for Texas.

The Western territories were strongly pro-Union. After secession, they would by free states anyways.

Whats that got to do with it. They didn't secede and so didn't have secession documents. I was speaking about what the documents were claiming as reasons for secession. They were talking out of both sides of their mouths. States rights for them to continue with slavery and forcing slavery on new states.

Nope, US troops fired on southern civilians on January 8, 1861, outside Fort Barrancas in Florida (a few months before Fort Sumter). The North fired the first shot in the war.

Florida didn't secede till the 10th. So there were no citizens of the Confederacy to fire on in Florida. There was no Confederacy at all yet. Just two states had seceded by the 8th and then Florida on the 10th.

The convention assembled in Tallahassee in early January 1861, and on January 10, adopted the ordinance of secession by an overwhelming vote when the bulk of the cooperationists went over to the secessionists.

On top of which you left out WHY they fired. The people the the US troops fired at were trying to take the fort. If shooting to defend the Fort counts then trying to take the Fort does as well and that obviously began before the defensive fire.

So you want to leave it at that or go to Ft. Sumter as that one is US citizens trying to take a US fort.

Again, the "real" justification would be tariffs.

That is still your claim unsupported by any facts. The secession documents still disagree with you. They make it very clear that slavery was the issue. If the people that made the decisions to secede though tariffs were that important they would have mentioned them. They didn't.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger


Exactly! It was counter-productive for the South to secede if their only goal was to preserve slavery. Ergo, there must have been another reason for seceding, namely tariffs.

So why didn't they mention it? If you want to invent reasons you can say they did it for all kinds of things. But modern revisionism won't make the secession documents disapear.

If the South had only wanted to keep their slaves, then they would have stayed in the Union. Why secede and risk a war if you can not secede and still keep slavery? The argument that they seceded in order to preserve slavery (and that the war was therefore primarily over slavery) doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Well they sure thought it did. They said so. If the people that decided to secede said it was over slavery I think I will take their documented words over your guesses.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/re...#SouthCarolina

Thats not just South Carolina on that page. Its South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. They don't mention tariffs and it suprised me when I read them considering how much hot air has been created trying to claim it was tariffs and not slavery.

Try reading them. Its illuminating and they really aren't that long if you take them one at a time.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Perhaps you only read the one for Texas. Its the least blatent about it being because of slavery.

Least blatant? From the Texas Declaration of Secession:

In all the non-slave-holding States...the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party...based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States

...all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations...

[Ramo]

Regarding your one and only argument: the secession papers said the war was about slavery, so it must've been about slavery.

The secession papers were propaganda, created principally for a legalistic reason, namely to gain European recognition and support (and to ward off an invasion). Propaganda is not where one should get information. The fact of the matter is that abolition was a phantom threat, while higher tariff duties were real, substantial threats, which almost caused a civil war 30 years earlier.

Florida didn't secede till the 10th. So there were no citizens of the Confederacy to fire on in Florida. There was no Confederacy at all yet. Just two states had seceded by the 8th and then Florida on the 10th.

The convention assembled in Tallahassee in early January 1861, and on January 10, adopted the ordinance of secession by an overwhelming vote when the bulk of the cooperationists went over to the secessionists.

On top of which you left out WHY they fired. The people the the US troops fired at were trying to take the fort. If shooting to defend the Fort counts then trying to take the Fort does as well and that obviously began before the defensive fire.

Irrelevant. You were ranting about firing the first shot, and I told you who did - federal troops.

So you want to leave it at that or go to Ft. Sumter as that one is US citizens trying to take a US fort.

Fine, you want to talk Ft. Sumter? I wouldn't exactly call resupplying a fort while negotiating its supposed surrender particularly defensive.

Whats that got to do with it.

Again, here is your post:
"Many of the complaints in the secession documents were infact over their desire to retain a strong voice in the Senate and to do so they wanted tp force slavery on new states."
By seceding, they have no more voice on the fate of the Western territories, nullifying your argument.

I was speaking about what the documents were claiming as reasons for secession. They were talking out of both sides of their mouths. States rights for them to continue with slavery and forcing slavery on new states.

Yes, yes, yes. The Southern leaders were hypocritical feudalistic, authoritarian bastards who deserved to die horrible, horrible deaths. You're preaching to the choir, here. But it is not what the debate is over.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Least blatant? From the Texas Declaration of Secession:

All right you caught me. I didn't feel like rereading it again to be sure whether it was the most or the least blatant. I new it was different from the rest. I shouldn't try to go easy on someone because they are from Texas.

Yeah that one is REAL clear that its about slavery.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
The fact of the matter is that abolition was a phantom threat,

I'm not entirely sure that abolition was such a phantom threat. Lincoln was elected from a party opposed to the extention of slavery and other Southern interests and, predictably, had virtually no support from within the South. It is quite possible that the Southern States saw that the writing was on the wall.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
So why didn't they mention it?

As Ramo previously mentioned, the tariffs that the North wanted to impose were legal (even if they did cripple the South). Why would the South bring up tariffs in the secession documents if they were trying to come up with a legal justification for seceding?

Well they sure thought it did. They said so. If the people that decided to secede said it was over slavery I think I will take their documented words over your guesses.

Again, the secession documents were created as a legal justification for secession. Why, then, would the South have brought up perfectly legal actions taken by the North in its secesion documents? The previous actions taken by the North that were illegal revolved around slavery, not tariffs. The previous (and future) actions taken by the North that would have caused (and later did come to cause) the most economic harm to the South were tariffs, though.

Lincoln's political platform was built around high tariffs. The reason the South seceded was to avoid these high tariffs. However, this did not constitute a legal justification for secession, while the North's previous actions with regards to slavery did provide legal justification for secession. Since the secession documents were intended to provide a legal justification for secession, they contained a great deal on slavey and not a bit on tariffs.

[Ramo]

It doesn't matter. Lincoln needed Southern support to peacefully abolish slavery.

[KrazyHorse]

I voted for everybody there except Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt because I had some inkling of what they'd done, Rutherford B. Hayes because his first name is that of the McGill physics building, and McKinley because he was assassinated, suggesting he'd done something worthwhile.

[Ramo]

McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist.

[KrazyHorse]

Actually, I was aware of that, surprisingly enough. Did it have anything to do with his actions, or was it just a general "Government is Bad" type of statement.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Actually, I was aware of that, surprisingly enough. Did it have anything to do with his actions, or was it just a general "Government is Bad" type of statement.

I believe the assassin was mentally unstable. Ramo probably didn't mention this because he felt it would be redundant.

[Ramo]

Actually, I was aware of that, surprisingly enough. Did it have anything to do with his actions, or was it just a general "Government is Bad" type of statement.

Well, McKinley was, more than usual, a protectionistic and imperialistic bastard.

But all I know about the assassin is that he was a disciple of Emma Goldman. IIRC, he wasn't particularly educated, but that might be gov't revisionism that I've read. I think the assassination would fit under a general "gov't is bad" label (I'd wager that most of what he opposed would've been actions by state and local gov't).

[Ramo]

I believe the assassin was mentally unstable. Ramo probably didn't mention this because he felt it would be redundant.

Bastard.

[KrazyHorse]

Ahhh, anarchists. Such a nice idea, so improbable. It's a good thing socialist paradises are easily implementable.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Bastard.

[DinoDoc]

Ramo, get on ICQ.