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.
They did have representation but just how powerful it was is the question and the balance of power in the government.
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.sore losers, the lot of them.
- 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.
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?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.
the 3/5 rule is a joke; why should things (those black people were chatel, right?) trigger more represantation?
that's the white south, right?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.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?
Here are two articles from the Mises Institute one about tariffs: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.
Timeline of Compromises over Slavery · SHEC: Resources for Teachers
Primary resources, classroom activities, graphic organizers and lesson plans produced by the American Social History Project designed for use in K-12 classrooms.herb.ashp.cuny.edu
As what issues other than slavery divided the nation.
Feel welcome if tariffs show up to drop back here.
I would love to see some quotes you think are significant.Here are two articles from the Mises Institute one about tariffs:
Did Tariffs Really Cause the American Civil War? | Chris Calton
In the first episode of the new season of Historical Controversies, which will focus on the sectional crises that led to the Civil War, I gave a brief explanation of my problem with the “Tariff Thesis” for the cause of southern secession.mises.org
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?
Sorry I couldn't respond to you earlier since I was busy this week at work.I would love to see some quotes you think are significant.
Too much extraneous rhetoric. I almost expect to see a leftist socialist conspiracy mentioned. "transitive property of algebra" Really???"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.
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.
Until Jan 1863, the Union strictly fought a war to prevent Southern secession.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Since the South was neither exterminated nor independent in the end, then the whole statement must be simple rhetoric.“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 "
So What? Same durn reason rebellions have been suppressed since the beginning of recorded history."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."