Southern Secession

He said so a letter to Horace Greeley. At that time, Lincoln was looking for a reason the issue the Emancipation Proclamation. During this period, even the North was divided on what the objective of the war was. Most thought that the goal was to restore the Union, which was Lincoln's stated objective at first. Ending slavery came later. There was a lot of grumbling in the Union Army after Lincoln issued the Proclamation.

Yes, people were racist in the North. It's no secret. The Irish immigrants were concerned that the freedmen would come north and compete with them for jobs and lower their wages. At the same time, the Union Government was drafting them into the army to fight for the slaves' freedom, and they didn't like it. That was the issue that drove the draft riots in New York City in July 1863, just after Gettysburg.

 

True. And he wasn't just looking for a reason. He had a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation sitting on his desk when he wrote the Greeley letter.

 

Your disrespect for me is blatantly obvious. I have tried to answer your questions, and you came back with this. I take great offense to your tone.

What's driving you is the fact that you a PO'd at the South for not voting like New York and California. What you want "mate" is one country and one political party.

 

What is dishonest is opening a discussion in the "opinions and beliefs" sections and calling the opinions of others dishonest. It appears as though you would like to hide the fact that in pursuit of political power, Democrats tolerate forced servitude, human trafficking, and forced sex on human beings. Both parties take the fruits of your labor using the threat of force. Dems are a bit worse on that issue.

 

I responded in kind. Try reading the tone you brought in your last post. Don't demand respect when you aren't offering it.

Your failures to read are not my responsibility.

 

Nothing in your post actually addresses the topic. Try again.

 

Yes, Lincoln was looking for a reason to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Secretary of State Seward had advised him that it would look weak and pitiful if Lincoln issued it in the wake of the lost battles in the summer of 1862. The defeat at Second Bull Run was the worst of them. Seward advised Lincoln to wait until there was a Union victory. The Battle of Antietam, which was actually a draw, but turned back Lee's advance on the North provided that opportunity.

 

Lincoln was always anti-slavery and wanted to set it on a course for its ultimate extinction. He realized he couldn't just issue an executive order and end slavery with his presidential power alone. However, he could do so in the South because the slaves captured in the South were technically contraband. He could free them as he pleased as the head of our armed forces. He didn't need the Legislative branch in the South the way he did in the Union.

 

And if the next president after Lincoln turned out to be a copperhead Democrat, the Emancipation Proclamation could have been reversed. It was only an executive order. That's way the amendment was needed to the Constitution was required.

The Democrat slogan during the 1864 presidential election was "The Union as it was (reunited): the constitution as it is (with slavery still intact). The message was conveyed here on this 1864 George McClellan token. Fortunately, Lincoln won the 1864 election.

 

All you are doing, as with the flags, is repeating what I've already told you.

 

Well I guess you know it all so there is no use showing you anything.

Why don't you write book or publish an article? I have published many articles and won awards for them,but since, I'm stupid, it was obviously a waste of time.

 

You literally said you were "teaching me a lesson." All you did was repeat what I had already said about the flags. I'm sorry your argument failed, but it isn't my fault that it did.

 

Well said. The "stated objective" is what gets people to vote and fight. The true objective, in my opinion, is power.

 

And Lincoln would not have gotten real power without a groundswell of support for his positions. That's why he couldn't do everything as fast as the radicals wanted him to do it in 1861 and '62. It's also why the misinformed censure him today for not freeing the slaves sooner. He did not control the South, and his control was tenuous over the border states.

 

Also in brief:

"These slave laws have been defended in various ways. They were passed in the midst of bitterness and fear and with great haste; they were worded somewhat like similar vagrancy laws in Northern States; they would have been modified in time; they said more than they really meant. All of this may be partly true, but it remains perfectly evident that the black codes looked backward toward slavery.

This legislation profoundly stirred the North. Not the North of industry and the new manufactures, but the ordinary everyday people of the North, who, uplifted by the tremendous afflatus of war, had seen a vision of something fine and just, and who, without any personal affection for the Negro or real knowledge of him, nevertheless were convinced that Negroes were human, and that Negro slavery was wrong; and that whatever freedom might mean, it certainly did not mean reenslavement under another name.

Here, then, was the dominant thought of that South with which Reconstruction must deal. Arising with aching head and palsied hands it deliberately looked backward. There came to the presidential chair, with vast power, a man who was Southern born; with him came inconceivable fears that the North proposed to make these Negroes really free; to give them a sufficient status even for voting, to give them the right to hold office; that there was even a possibility that these slaves might out-vote their former masters; that they might accumulate wealth, achieve education, and finally, they might even aspire to marry white women and mingle their blood with the blood of their masters.

It was fantastic. It called for revolt. It called in extremity for the renewal of war. The Negro must be kept in his place by hunger, whipping and murder. As W. P. Calhoun of Greenville, South Carolina, said as late as 1901: "Character, wealth, learning, good behavior, and all that makes up or constitutes good citizenship in the black man is positively of no avail whatever. Merit cannot win in this case." 45

The cry of the bewildered freeman rose, but it was drowned by the Rebel yell.

I am a Southerner;
I love the South; I dared for her
To fight from Lookout to the sea,
With her proud banner over me.
But from my lips thanksgiving broke,
As God in battle-thunder spoke,
And that Black Idol, breeding drouth
And dearth of human sympathy Throughout the sweet and sensuous South,
Was, with its chains and human yoke, Blown hellward from the cannon's mouth,
While Freedom cheered behind the smoke! MAURICE TH0MPSON"
BLACK RECONSTRUCTION IN AMERICA 1860- 1880, W.E.B. Dubois, introduction by David Levering Lewis, the Free Press new York 1998. p. 179, 180.

Old times that should have been rejected, and not forgotten.

 

There are accounts and even graphic evidence of the holocaust. One can visit the gas chambers and ovens to this day as a tourist.

 

Nobody wants to hide it. Its history. Why would conservatives want to hide anything about the racist democrat south of the slave days?

 

This topic has been beaten ad nauseum here for decades. The problem is people like you are incapable of separating the men in the war and their motivations from their politicians who made the decisions.

Because of that you are therefore incapable of separating the military achievements of men and generals on the field and sympathizing with their sacrifices because to you it’s only about slavery.

Thus you are incapable of understanding how anyone living today can have even a sliver of pride in their heritage without being a virulent racist.

There have been many like you before you, there are many right now, and there will be many more saying the exact same as you in the future while thinking they’re somehow putting this issue to rest when it’s all just narrow minded regurgitation

 

Explain why tariffs had zero to do with secession.

What's the "real one"?

 

Interesting coins, thanks.

Looks like Harlan Crowe maybe hasn't yet cornered the market on this kinda stuff,

https://www.usrarecoininvestments.c...h-civil-war-token-ngc-au58-7472001_5734_d.htm

Yours for only 1750....

 

1) The tariffs in place at the time were at a record low and had been designed by the South. They were favorable to the South.
2) South Carolina had threatened to secede over tariffs in the past . . . and no other Southern state was willing to join them . . . so they backed off.
3) NONE of the declarations of causes of secession mention tariffs. At all. In any way, shape, or form.
4) Oh, you mean the Morrill Tariff? Yes. That passed the House and was extremely anti-South . . . and it didn't have the votes to pass the Senate until AFTER 7 states seceded. The South didn't secede over tariffs. Their secession CAUSED the tariffs.

The "real one" was the stainless banner, to which a red stripe was later added to create the bloodstained banner.

 

Sorry bud, but history isn't on your side with this.

The slave holding southerns were overwhelmingly Democrat. Your using the word conservative to describe them to avoid this inconvenient fact.

By todays standards, the most liberal were still conservative, and Democrats dominated the slave market.

Let's start with that point first and then we can discuss the rest of your OP.

 

What I find dishonest is your stupendously and egregiously pathetic attempt to confer upon the current D party the sins of its past, all of which were carried over to the R party almost instantaneously by Strom Thurmond. Equally dishonest is your attempt to wrap the current R party in the cloak of dignity that that it once carried, albeit not uniformly, by being the party credited with ending the vile and immoral practice that has always been and shall forever be the institution of slavery.

 

I haven't denied they were Democrats. But, sorry bud, history isn't on your side with this. They were conservative . . . as are the vast majority of the people defending them today.

 

So… you labeled where we can’t chime in so where exactly can we chime in? I agree that the root cause was slavery. They argued slavery as a states right. So I’m not going to argue with you at all. Why even make a thread like this.