Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Apr 8, 2019 7:30:58 GMT -8
Yes, the underlying isssue was slavery, but the reason those first states ceceded from the union was “nobody is going to tell THIS state what we can or can’t do,” in other words, they left the union over states rights... The only significant issue the South had with the North was slavery. So to claim that the issue was "states rights" is a bit of sophistry since the only "right" that was seriously disputed was the right to have slaves. Slavery was what caused the Civil War, not some vaguely noble concept of" states rights"............................ |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 8, 2019 7:37:28 GMT -8
"Today's" iteration of the democratic party was a misstatement. Would he be considered a moderate democrat, or a moderate republican (or RINO as the staunch conservatives would say)?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 8, 2019 7:38:58 GMT -8
Yes, the underlying isssue was slavery, but the reason those first states ceceded from the union was “nobody is going to tell THIS state what we can or can’t do,” in other words, they left the union over states rights... The only significant issue the South had with the North was slavery. So to claim that the issue was "states rights" is a bit of sophistry since the only "right" that was seriously disputed was the right to have slaves. Slavery was what caused the Civil War, not some vaguely noble concept of" states rights"............................ Yes, as I said, slabery was the underlying issue. BECAUSE the southern states believed it was their own right to determine. Let’s not make this more complex (nor simplistic) than it already is. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 8, 2019 20:26:02 GMT -8
Yes, the underlying isssue was slavery, but the reason those first states ceceded from the union was “nobody is going to tell THIS state what we can or can’t do,” in other words, they left the union over states rights... The only significant issue the South had with the North was slavery. So to claim that the issue was "states rights" is a bit of sophistry since the only "right" that was seriously disputed was the right to have slaves. Slavery was what caused the Civil War, not some vaguely noble concept of" states rights"............................ At first glance, this may seem like semantics, but since I am dealing with intelligent people like Dave & Luca, I'm sure my point will be understood. Slavery caused the South to succeed, they did not want to be told how to run their states. The South choose to succeed rather than try to force the Northern states to continue to accept slavery. The North would not allow succession, which is what caused the Civil War. So slavery caused Southern succession, but it did not cause the Civil War. The Norths refusal to accept the Souths succession caused the Civil War. Had the North accepted the Souths succession, there would have been no Civil War. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 8, 2019 21:53:36 GMT -8
Was there any linkage between Thomas Jefferson as one of the root causes of the Civil War? As a former large slave owner and the architect of the states rights movement, it seems he would have provided the foundation for what would ultimately become the confederacy.
|
|
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 9, 2019 5:53:10 GMT -8
Did a little digging into Thomas Jefferson and ran across the Northwest Ordinance he authored that limited slavery from expanding into the other territories.
While the growth of slavery itself would be limited, wasn't the larger, overriding issue be the land acquisition by the agriculturally driven plantation owners?
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 9, 2019 8:28:37 GMT -8
Agricultural land without the slaves to work it was seen by many Southerners as a worthless asset.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 9, 2019 8:36:42 GMT -8
Yes.
Is there any evidence Jefferson was seeking to limit the concentrated land grab as the primary motivation for the Northwest Ordinance? If so, it was brilliant.
If not, it was a positive unintended consequence.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Apr 9, 2019 13:45:05 GMT -8
At first glance, this may seem like semantics, but since I am dealing with intelligent people like Dave & Luca, I'm sure my point will be understood. Slavery caused the South to succeed, they did not want to be told how to run their states. The South choose to succeed rather than try to force the Northern states to continue to accept slavery. The North would not allow succession, which is what caused the Civil War. So slavery caused Southern succession, but it did not cause the Civil War. The Norths refusal to accept the Souths succession caused the Civil War. Had the North accepted the Souths succession, there would have been no Civil War. That is rather a fine distinction, RSM. I think I know what you mean but I don’t think I would interpret it that way. Lincoln had a different interpretation in his second inaugural address: “ 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……..” Abraham Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery in the South. He did intend to prevent its extension into the new territories and that was unacceptable to the South. Perhaps the best letter I have ever read was the one he sent to Horace Greeley in which he stated: “ My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views………. I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.” You cannot write much more clearly than that. The South was unwilling to accept restrictions on extension of slavery into the free territories because they feared that ultimately they would lose power in the Senate and House and eventually be outvoted. But that was their interpretation and fear. Lincoln had no intent to abolish slavery. It was South that fired the first shots at Fort Sumter, which was the proximate cause of the war. You can say it was the North’s unwillingness to accept Southern seccession that was the cause, or you can say that it was the South's unwillingness to accept Lincoln and the restriction of slavery extension that was the cause. I would tend to look at who fired the first shots. Ultimately this is rather an academic dispute. But there is no denying that slavery itself was the overwhelming primary cause of the Civil War. Without slavery there would have been no war……………………Luca |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 9, 2019 18:05:37 GMT -8
That all makes sense and I agree with you that it is a bit of an academic dispute. The South did fire the first shots at Fort Sumner, but it was at the North that refused to give up & vacate the Fort which was located on Southern land. Kind of like throwing the first punch at a guy who has his hand on your wife's rear end.
Do you believe if that South had not succeeded and continued to practice slavery, that war still would have been the way the dispute would have been resolved?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 9, 2019 18:29:47 GMT -8
No, even had the south not seceded, I believe Lincoln felt strongly enough about slabery that it would still have ended.
The North’s perspective was, they didn’t want the south to secede. The South started pulling away because they felt it was their right (to own slaves), but the North’s objective was (well, to end slavery) to bring the recalcitrant southern states in line.
War or no War, I think we would still be where we are today with civil rights because right is right and wrong is wrong.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Apr 9, 2019 20:16:47 GMT -8
The North was under no obligation to vacate the fort unless one assumes that the South was a legitimate independent country, which was the whole point under dispute in the first place. The South was not recognized as a separate nation from a legal (Northern) perspective and hence there was no obligation for Union soldiers to leave. If San Diego County voted to secede from the United States, the US would have no obligation to vacate Camp Pendleton.
Lincoln pretty much knew war was coming and he manipulated the position of Sumter specifically to induce the South into starting the fight. I don’t agree that he would have forcefully ended slavery in the absence of a war because as his letter above makes plain he states his purpose was preservation of the union and not abolition of slavery. He was not even certain he had the right as president to interfere in the institution of slavery.
Eventually even in the absence of civil war or secession slavery would have been abolished. Obviously this is 2019 and it would not be sustainable. I believe all the European countries had forsworn slavery by 1861 and it is inconceivable that it could have been much longer maintained in the South. Ulysses Grant believed that slavery would eventually have been abolished without Civil War or separation and I think Robert E. Lee believed the same………………………Luca
Hey, why am I suddenly a "senior contributor", Bick? I'm still a young, virile specimen of manhood. You must be thinking of MDDad
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 9, 2019 20:29:17 GMT -8
After a robust review of all your posts, it was a unanimous vote of the executive designation sub - committee to confer upon you an additional star and senior designation.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Apr 9, 2019 21:08:02 GMT -8
What seemed to push it over the edge to war was the election of Lincoln without a single electoral vote from the south. Speaking of which, wouldn't Lincoln have been a Democrat today? Actually, there's little reason to think Lincoln would be a Democrat, unless we swallow the modern-day myth that liberals and Democrats somehow occupy the moral high ground on racial issues. They never have, as the following video from Prager U. helps explain. |
|
