What would have happened if the South was allowed to secede peacefully?

[GibbsFactor]

How could it have easily been abolished without a war? I have not read the whole thread yet so if you already said how sorry to make you restate it but I would be interested to know just how this could have been done without war.

Could have bought the slaves for one.

[Predicto]

Slavery could very easily have been abolished with or without the government in the United States. that is my point. I'm saying it's unfortunate we had to fight a war for the end result to be total abolition. I'm really dumbfounded that you do not agree with that

Because it is not true. It is wishful thinking at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst.

Sure, slavery might have been abolished in the Confederacy many decades later. We will never know. But the fact remains that the Confederacy seceded in 1860, and it did so to preserve its slavery. That was what caused the war that you want to blame on Abraham Lincoln.

Say, have you ever read the OFFICIAL secession documents from the various Confederate states?

Here's the text from South Carolina, the very first state to secede.

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad]; and those who remain have been incited by emissaries, books, and pictures to servile insurrection. . . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States [Abraham Lincoln] whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common government because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . . The slaveholding states will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the federal government will have become their enemy...

Perhaps you prefer to see the text from the secession documents of Mississippi, the second state to secede.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. . . . [A] blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution [slavery], a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787. † . . . It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves and refuses protection to that right on the high seas [i.e., banning the slave trade], in the territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. It refuses the admission of new slave states into the Union and seeks to extinguish it [slavery] by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. . . . It advocates Negro equality, socially and politically. . . . It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the states and wherever else slavery exists. . . . We must either submit to degradation and to the loss of property [i.e., slaves] worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers to secure this as well as every other species of property.

Oh wait. How about Georgia?

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate states with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have . . . persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property [i.e., slaves]. . . . A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of antislavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government [i.e., the Republican Party] has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, ¥ called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an antislavery party. . . . - antislavery is its mission and its purpose. . . . That reason was her [the Republican Party's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the states where it exists. The South, with great unanimity, declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition [abolition] to the last extremity. . . . The prohibition of slavery in the territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its [Republican] leaders and applauded by its followers. . . . The prohibition of slavery in the territories is the cardinal principle of this organization [the Republican Party] . . . . For twenty years past, the abolitionists and their allies in the northern states have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions [i.e., slavery] and to excite insurrection and servile war among us.

How about Texas?

Texas] was received as a commonwealth, holding, maintaining, and protecting the institution known as Negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within [Texas] - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slaveholding states of the Confederacy. . . . The controlling majority [i.e., Republicans] of the federal government . . . has so administered the same . . . for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions [i.e., slavery] of Texas and her sister slaveholding states. . . . In all the non-slave-holding states . . . the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party [i.e., the Republican 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. . . . By the secession of six of the slave-holding states, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North or unite her destinies with the South.

How about the speech above by Confederate Vice President Stevens?

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid - its cornerstone rests - upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery - subordination to the superior [white] race - is his natural and moral condition. This - our new [Confederate] government - is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

How about the freaking Constitition of the Confederacy?

ARTICLE I, Section 6, (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves shall be passed.

ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (1) The citizens of each state . . . shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any state of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

ARTICLE IV, Section 2, (3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any state or territory of the Confederate States under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall . . . be discharged from such service or labor but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs.

[Predicto]

I do not know if I hate Lincoln but any person who says this is not cool in my book:

"I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal. . . We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." - Abraham Lincoln, after signing the Emancipation Proclamation

Talk to pretty much any white person in 1860 and you would have gotten similar sentiments (unless maybe they were a Quaker).

No one is claiming that Lincoln was an enlightened, 21st century man.

[skinfan133]

I'd be curious to know what books you read about Lincoln.

If they were written by Thomas diLorenzo or Grady McWhiney or Clyde Wilson, then I think you have been sold a bill of goods by people with a neo-Confederate agenda.

I've read "A Team of Rivals: the Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. its a friggin long book, but a good read. To me, the book showed me just how calculating Lincoln was, and how smart: the man was incredibly intelligent.

That's really the only scholarly book I've read dedicated solely to Lincoln. Everything else I've learned about the man on my own has come from secondary reading.

you'll probably grind your teeth and wail, but I think Thomas Woods makes some good arguments in some of his works. Hes a little off base in places, but for the most part the man cites good historical sources.

[shk75]

Talk to pretty much any white person in 1860 and you would have gotten similar sentiments (unless maybe they were a Quaker).

No one is claiming that Lincoln was an enlightened, 21st century man.

I am not debating that. What I am saying is that I am not cool with that line of thought and cannot respect a person who thinks that way.

[Predicto]

I am not debating that. What I am saying is that I am not cool with that line of thought and cannot respect a person who thinks that way.

Well, I hope you don't care about disrespecting the founding fathers, because they pretty much all felt that way too. Racial equality is a very new concept, at least in Western society.

[skinfan133]

If you were actually interested in that, you could have looked it up. You're just using it as a means to discount something that doesn't mesh with what you want to believe. But keep on congratulating yourself on how open minded you are. It's quite amusing.

Edit: And by the way, what possible gain would there be in claiming that the war was about slavery? What agenda would he have been trying to mask if he didn't really mean it?

thanks for telling me what I'm thinking for me, jeez, I should have hired you to do it for me months ago, would make life so ****ing easy, no? :thumbsup: :finger:

I simply asked who the **** the audience was from the person who quoted the speech. I have no idea what that speech was, hence why I ****ing asked where it was given, when, and to whom! why would I do that if I knew which particular speech it was?? And I AM ****ing interested in it THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING

[Predicto]

I've read "A Team of Rivals: the Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. its a friggin long book, but a good read. To me, the book showed me just how calculating Lincoln was, and how smart: the man was incredibly intelligent.

That's really the only scholarly book I've read dedicated solely to Lincoln. Everything else I've learned about the man on my own has come from secondary reading.

Team of Rivals is a great book. I think the secondary sources are more of the problem here.

you'll probably grind your teeth and wail, but I think Thomas Woods makes some good arguments in some of his works. Hes a little off base in places, but for the most part the man cites good historical sources.

I'm not going to grind my teeth and wail, but I am going to respect your opinion on this subject a little less than I previously did.

For those who don't know, Thomas Woods is the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History," a laughably simplistic pseudo-libertarian schlockfest written in "How to Guide for Dummies" style.

Here's the cover.

He was one of the founders of the neo-confederate League of the South. "The League of the South is a Southern nationalist organization, headquartered in Killen, Alabama, whose ultimate goal is "a free and independent Southern republic."[1] The group defines the Southern United States as the states that made up the former Confederacy.[2] While political independence ranks highly among the group's goals, it is also a religious and social movement, advocating a return to a more traditional, conservative Christian-oriented Southern culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South

I now am not surprised that you beleive the things that you do.

[Predicto]

thanks for telling me what I'm thinking for me, jeez, I should have hired you to do it for me months ago, would make life so ****ing easy, no? :thumbsup: :finger:

I simply asked who the **** the audience was from the person who quoted the speech. I have no idea what that speech was, hence why I ****ing asked where it was given, when, and to whom! why would I do that if I knew which particular speech it was?? And I AM ****ing interested in it THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING

It was only the single most significant policy speech from any Confederate official prior to Fort Sumpter.

"The Cornerstone Speech was delivered by Confederate Vice President, Alexander Stephens extemporaneously in Savannah, Georgia on March 21, 1861. The speech explained what the differences were between the constitution of the Confederate Republic and that of the United States, laid out the Confederate causes for the American Civil War, and defended slavery."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

[Switchgear]

thanks for telling me what I'm thinking for me, jeez, I should have hired you to do it for me months ago, would make life so ****ing easy, no? :thumbsup: :finger:

I simply asked who the **** the audience was from the person who quoted the speech. I have no idea what that speech was, hence why I ****ing asked where it was given, when, and to whom! why would I do that if I knew which particular speech it was?? And I AM ****ing interested in it THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING

I see I touched a nerve. Well, since spending a couple of minutes on google was too much to ask of this young scholar, here's the speech. It was given March 21, 1861 in Savannah, Georgia. It's commonly referred to as the "Cornerstone speech", as it laid out the difference between the US and Confederate governments. Obviously he didn't mean a word of it...

[Henry]

I believe the Stephens speech was given during Georgia's Secession Convention, when they re-assembled to ratify the Confederate constitution. It was also re-printed and distributed throughout the south as a secession pamphlet.

I cannot find a credible link to back this up so you'll just have to trust me or look it up and correct me if I'm wrong.

[Madison Redskin]

here's another fact: we're the only civilized nation to have ever had to resort to war to end slavery, every other country did it peacefully and there was just as much status and racism at stake.

What's your point? That we would have been better off had the South been allowed to outlaw slavery on its own time? That's nice.

[Predicto]

What's your point? That we would have been better off had the South been allowed to outlaw slavery on its own time? That's nice.

Well, WE would have been better off.

Those black people.... not so much.

[Henry]

It's fairly simple. I don't have any any preconceived opinions, I do believe that one of the major motivating factors was the slavery issue.

But...

That's an opinion. Only an opinion, even the opinion of the General cited earlier.

Facts are, states rights were the reason. States Rights to allow Slavery, States Rights to allow a certain economy, States Rights to secede if laws favored other states more so then their own.

Those are the facts. The motivating factor many here are talking about are opinions.

Lincoln was the one at fault and most historians without bias agree. It was the right of those states to secede. Arguing over why they did is easy. The Union interpreted what it could and could not do differently and seemed to side with more central power versus a decentralized group of powerful states. The south disagreed and chose to leave the union. Perhaps slavery was a key motivating factor but again, that is opinion. Facts stated were a fundamental disagreement over federal vs state power.

Quick question. Does any libertarian not despise Abraham Lincoln?

You guys are like a cult.

[alexey]

skinfan13, GibbsFactor, SnyderShrugged, and whoever else holds a position that slavery was not the main issue over which Southern states seceded,

Please reply to this post when you get a chance:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=7095065&postcount=202

[GibbsFactor]

skinfan13, GibbsFactor, SnyderShrugged, and whoever else holds a position that slavery was not the main issue over which Southern states seceded,

Please reply to this post when you get a chance:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=7095065&postcount=202

What were the first 5 items in article 1?

:evilg:

[brandymac27]

I gotta say, regardless of which side your on in this thread, it has been very informative. But then again, I'm a big history buff so I love stuff like this. Good thread!

[maxiumone]

This has been a great thread thanks all in it for putting in the time.

My question for both sides is if slavery was a moot point and the federal government was still taking the rights of the state that the US constitution granted the states would the states have still seceded and war?

2. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports, or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the Confederate States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.

3. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on seagoing vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.

Now the above is the rest of article 10 of the CSA constitution. While I have no doubt that slavery was the leading issue it was by far not the only issue.

Thus why I ask the question

[GibbsFactor]

People also fail to understand that these were democracies.

EVERYONE in the south wanted to keep slavery? Rubbish.

it's easy to find quotes to rich slave owners. Much harder to find the propaganda to the common folk.

[Henry]

People also fail to understand that these were democracies.

EVERYONE in the south wanted to keep slavery? Rubbish.

it's easy to find quotes to rich slave owners. Much harder to find the propaganda to the common folk.

So?

You could say the same thing about the American Revolution. Just because the rich landowners wanted lower taxes I guess all that stuff about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is bunk and doesn't apply to everyone? The fact that there was a percentage of loyalists means our revolution was based on a lie or something?

I am sure not all southerners fought to maintain the institution of slavery. I'm sure not all southerners were secessionists (Alexander Stephens, for example, wasn't one.) But the south did, and was.

If we have to debate the motives of every single inhabitant of a nation when discussing history, our threads are going to get a lot longer.

[Tut77]

The invention of the cotton gin was doing away with slavery. So I'm told. There are always two sides of any story, but I gather slavery was coming to an end anyway.

Actually, the invention of the cotton gin made cotton a profitable crop and led to a major increase in slavery because of the increased demand for labor. In 1790, there were 6 slave states, in 1860, there were 15. Before the gin, cotton was too labor intensive to be a major crop. The cotton gin made it possible to grow and process much more cotton with the same amount of land and labor. In 1793, the south produced only 180,000 pounds of cotton. In 1810, 93 Million tons were produced.

[zoony]

Quick question. Does any libertarian not despise Abraham Lincoln?

You guys are like a cult.

Ironic that if they got their way of a soft Federal Gov bowing to the demands of dozens of rogue nation-states that all those "freedom-loving" Ron Paulites would most likely be speaking German and goose - stepping right now, praising their glorious leader.

Of course, it is worth considering that a sizable percentage of them wouldn't mind so much.

[GibbsFactor]

So?

You could say the same thing about the American Revolution. Just because the rich landowners wanted lower taxes I guess all that stuff about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is bunk and doesn't apply to everyone?

We wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't kinda bunk now would we.

And I don't despise Lincoln, and understand desperate times call for desperate measures. Keeping the union together was his mission, he succeeded and ended slavery. I have no issues with him. But do understand the knocks against him.

[nonniey]

The interesting thing about these type of threads is that it tends to shuffle up who is on which side of the debate. The Conservatives line up with the liberals against the libertarians.

[Ellis]

It didn't seem like a political debate in this thread to me.

I looked like a genuine discussion where many myths about Lincoln were dispelled and the truth of the War came to the surface.

I personally enjoyed reading everyone's opinion in this thread.