Common Views of Secession/States Rights

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
They did have representation but just how powerful it was is the question and the balance of power in the government.
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,173
Reaction score
3,430
They did have representation but just how powerful it was is the question and the balance of power in the government.
  • the american system always was 'the winner takes it all' - they lost.
  • the 3/5 rule is a joke; why should things (those black people were chatel, right?) trigger more represantation?
  • in fact the south was always overrepresented in dc and when they (for the first time) lost controll of the government they went all nuts.
sore losers, the lot of them.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,408
Reaction score
3,042
  • the american system always was 'the winner takes it all' - they lost.
  • the 3/5 rule is a joke; why should things (those black people were chatel, right?) trigger more represantation?
  • in fact the south was always overrepresented in dc and when they (for the first time) lost controll of the government they went all nuts.
sore losers, the lot of them.
They weren't used to losing - anywhere! 3/5 - Lincoln pointed out that very thing. Why not hogs, horses, cows...oh, right - the North doesn't have slaves. The South could always keep ahead by counting property they could pile on and the North could not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,173
Reaction score
3,430
They weren't used to losing - anywhere! 3/5 - Lincoln pointed out that very thing. Why not hogs, horses, cows...oh, right - the North doesn't have slaves. The South could always keep ahead by counting property they could pile on and the North could not.
what i never understood is: when black people were considered subhuman (we don't have a trademark on thatone) why all that boffing? shouldn't self declared religious folk restrain from bestiality?

this whole thing makes no sense whatsoever
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,408
Reaction score
3,042
No, it never did to me, either. Slavery was and is a worldwide enterprise but it really got twisted in the American South. I've always said the planters could not reconcile their religion with their greed and so had to twist their minds into pretzels to live with what they were doing. They'd be having a gracious, classy tea on one end of the veranda while listening to some slave getting the crap beat out of him at the other. These are the people who went to war to preserve the Revolution, the principles of equality and liberty and all that grand stuff...but that's for me, not for thee!
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
the 3/5 rule is a joke; why should things (those black people were chatel, right?) trigger more represantation?

Then after the 13th and subsequent Amendments it became 5/5ths once Reconstruction wound down. And then voter suppression and terror ruled, and the south gained even more representative power in relation to their population.
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,173
Reaction score
3,430
Then after the 13th and subsequent Amendments it became 5/5ths once Reconstruction wound down. And then voter suppression and terror ruled, and the south gained even more representative power in relation to their population.
that's the white south, right?
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,408
Reaction score
3,042
Then after the 13th and subsequent Amendments it became 5/5ths once Reconstruction wound down. And then voter suppression and terror ruled, and the south gained even more representative power in relation to their population.
Old Joe was right - you don't have to win...just don't lose.
 

nicholls

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
91
Reaction score
56
Some related questions.

What power was being wield by the North that threatened the South? -- Demand details.
Extra credit question is to ask what actions of the Lincoln administration drove the South to secession.
This might be interesting.

As what issues other than slavery divided the nation.
Feel welcome if tariffs show up to drop back here.
Here are two articles from the Mises Institute one about tariffs:



Here is another: https://mises.org/wire/southern-secession-was-one-thing-—-and-war-prevent-it-was-another

What is your opinion about both articles?
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Here are two articles from the Mises Institute one about tariffs:



Here is another: https://mises.org/wire/southern-secession-was-one-thing-—-and-war-prevent-it-was-another

What is your opinion about both articles?
I would love to see some quotes you think are significant.
 

nicholls

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
91
Reaction score
56
I would love to see some quotes you think are significant.
Sorry I couldn't respond to you earlier since I was busy this week at work.

In the first article, it is this quote that is significant:

"It is important to stress, of course, that the Union apologists who argue that the Civil War was waged over slavery are distorting the history as well. Secession was one thing, and the war to end it was another, as Ryan McMaken succinctly reminded us in a recent article. The fallacy that the war was fought over slavery is based on the inappropriate application of algebraic logic to historical analysis: according to the transitive property of algebra, if secession was driven by slavery and the war was driven by secession, then the war must have been driven by slavery. "

In the second article, these quotes are significant:

"Those who were ready to call for war were more often animated by ideological views tied to defending "the Union," which many regarded as sacred, while the Northern policymakers themselves were concerned with the retention of military installations and with revenue concerns. The South provided a lot of revenue for the North, and the North wanted to keep it that way."

this quote also:

"The lack of precision used in equating the war, slavery, and secession, serves an important purpose for modern anti-secessionists. Their knee-jerk opposition to any form of decentralization or locally-based democracy impels them to equate secession itself with slavery, even though secession can be motivated by any number of reasons. After all, secession was the preferred strategy of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison who as early as 1844 began preaching the slogan "No union with slaveholders!" In Garrison's mind, the North ought to secede in order to free northerners from the burdens of the fugitive slave acts, and to offer safe haven to escaping slaves."

The author of the second article accuses the North of waging war against the South to keep the tariff revenue for the North.

In the second quote, he talks about Garrison supporting secession. I would like a more informed historian's opinion about that.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
"It is important to stress, of course, that the Union apologists who argue that the Civil War was waged over slavery are distorting the history as well. Secession was one thing, and the war to end it was another, as Ryan McMaken succinctly reminded us in a recent article. The fallacy that the war was fought over slavery is based on the inappropriate application of algebraic logic to historical analysis: according to the transitive property of algebra, if secession was driven by slavery and the war was driven by secession, then the war must have been driven by slavery.
Too much extraneous rhetoric. I almost expect to see a leftist socialist conspiracy mentioned. "transitive property of algebra" Really???

Secession was caused by slavery, without secession, there would be no war. Easy to get to slavery was the cause. The South initiated the war because the North refused to recognize secession. In the view of the South, it was a war for independence, for the North it was a war to prevent that. That is fine, but the question is independence for what. Independence to protect slavery. The war for the South was the independence to protect slavery. There is no firewall between independence and slavery.

Until Jan 1863, the Union strictly fought a war to prevent Southern secession. After then, the war objective included ending slavery as a means of militarily defeating the South. Slavery is still in there.

I'll address the other quotes later.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
Sorry I couldn't respond to you earlier since I was busy this week at work.

In the first article, it is this quote that is significant:

"It is important to stress, of course, that the Union apologists who argue that the Civil War was waged over slavery are distorting the history as well. Secession was one thing, and the war to end it was another, as Ryan McMaken succinctly reminded us in a recent article. The fallacy that the war was fought over slavery is based on the inappropriate application of algebraic logic to historical analysis: according to the transitive property of algebra, if secession was driven by slavery and the war was driven by secession, then the war must have been driven by slavery. "

In the second article, these quotes are significant:

"Those who were ready to call for war were more often animated by ideological views tied to defending "the Union," which many regarded as sacred, while the Northern policymakers themselves were concerned with the retention of military installations and with revenue concerns. The South provided a lot of revenue for the North, and the North wanted to keep it that way."

this quote also:

"The lack of precision used in equating the war, slavery, and secession, serves an important purpose for modern anti-secessionists. Their knee-jerk opposition to any form of decentralization or locally-based democracy impels them to equate secession itself with slavery, even though secession can be motivated by any number of reasons. After all, secession was the preferred strategy of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison who as early as 1844 began preaching the slogan "No union with slaveholders!" In Garrison's mind, the North ought to secede in order to free northerners from the burdens of the fugitive slave acts, and to offer safe haven to escaping slaves."

The author of the second article accuses the North of waging war against the South to keep the tariff revenue for the North.

In the second quote, he talks about Garrison supporting secession. I would like a more informed historian's opinion about that.

With all due respect @nicholls all that you have quoted is post civil war and revisionist, i.e. bull-shit and cherry pickin'.

Y.M.O.S.

obi

Feel free to present more evidence.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
Until Jan 1863, the Union strictly fought a war to prevent Southern secession.

Late September1862, right after Lincoln's reply to that stickler Greeley.

Declaration given Fall of 1862, no reply. Emancipation January 1, 1863.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
Lincolns emancipation I keep seeing mentioned was basically him saying go on now your free in these states not including West VA, Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
Lincolns emancipation I keep seeing mentioned was basically him saying go on now your free in these states not including West VA, Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland.
Only where Federal troops were about to take or occupy. The Order did not apply to regions or States in which there was no rebellion.

Thus, Kentucky and east TN. and others were exempt. Hell came ta' breakfast later...w/ the 13th Amendment.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
Lincolns emancipation I keep seeing mentioned was basically him saying go on now your free in these states not including West VA, Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland.
Only where Federal troops were about to take or occupy. The Order did not apply to regions or States in which there was no rebellion.

Thus, Kentucky and east TN. and others were exempt. Hell came ta' breakfast later...w/ the 13th Amendment.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a military order, only applicable where military law was in effect. It was an extension of military law confiscating enemy means to wage war. In theory after the war, former Southern slaveholders could have sued to get their slaves back in civilian courts, hence the 13th amendment.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
“The war...must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks...unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence,and that, or extermination, we WILL have”
― Jefferson Davis "
Since the South was neither exterminated nor independent in the end, then the whole statement must be simple rhetoric.


Mr. DAVIS, I believe, has not yet acknowledged the right of his black countrymen to "self-government" or "independence" either. Nor does he acknowledge the right of North Carolina to secede from his confederacy, and thus disconnect herself from a rebellion into which she was precipitated by the grossest frauds. The Unionists of the South were conceded no right but apostacy on peril of extermination by DAVIS and his upholders. Yet he, doubtless, is fighting for "independence" -- for freedom to impose chains on half the people of the Slave States, and to reign as autocrat over the residue. "Independence is to him power, state, luxury, importance; out to the undistinguished many, even of whites, under his sway, it is quite other than these. We may safely assume that he will make no peace that restores the Union, so long as there is a possible alternative. Yet the Gilmore-Jaques mission is no failure, though it resulted but in demonstrating this.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
"Those who were ready to call for war were more often animated by ideological views tied to defending "the Union," which many regarded as sacred, while the Northern policymakers themselves were concerned with the retention of military installations and with revenue concerns. The South provided a lot of revenue for the North, and the North wanted to keep it that way."
So What? Same durn reason rebellions have been suppressed since the beginning of recorded history.
 
Top