(05-02-2017 02:56 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Most Northerners were shocked at the War Measure of the Emancipation simply because they had not been told by their government that that was the reason for which they were fighting in a war.

This led to conscription of men into the US Military. This led to riots by the masses. This was Lincolns "Hail Mary".

The This War Measure by Lincoln also caused a desertion crisis amongst the Northern Army. Per noted historian , James McPherson ,.."in the Federal Army officers were quoted as saying things like: if emancipation is to be the policy of his war... I do. It care how quick the country goes to pot !"

Still waiting in a US government paper , congressional vote or documentation that slavery was the reason again for the Northern Invasion of the CSA. RWT, time to step up if you can?

i posted a link earlier that you must have missed:

http://www.civilwar.org/education/histor...oogle.com/

Again, slavery issues led to secession, secession led to war.

Economics led to war!! Taxation led to war!

If slavery led to war,.. why did Lincoln offer up to keep slavery in the South IF they would pay the requested tax?

Sure it was all about slavery that very few even owned.

 "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."

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/linc...reeley.htm

(05-02-2017 08:58 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Bottom line is we should have picked our own cotton. That said I don't believe not will I ever believe that slavery was the primary reason for the war.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

https://web.archive.org/web/200902011853...carsec.asp

Don't be a fool.

(05-02-2017 02:55 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  RWT,
You can't handle the fact that great emancipator didn't care for the people you claim the war was about.. plain and simple.

Why did the EP only pertain to Southern Territories and states that had left BUT not the USA above the Mason Dixon line? I'm waiting...?!

Ummm....where did I make any claim to that effect? I only gave you my interpretation of one passage from Lincoln.

1607-1618 promising.... then all went to crap!

RWT you may think you know a lot but what you know is wrong. How can you interpret Lincoln any different than how he considered the Negro vs White?

(05-02-2017 03:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:55 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  RWT,
You can't handle the fact that great emancipator didn't care for the people you claim the war was about.. plain and simple.

Why did the EP only pertain to Southern Territories and states that had left BUT not the USA above the Mason Dixon line? I'm waiting...?!

Ummm....where did I make any claim to that effect? I only gave you my interpretation of one passage from Lincoln.

You really shouldnt pull this thread. Just sayin

(05-02-2017 03:33 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:56 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Most Northerners were shocked at the War Measure of the Emancipation simply because they had not been told by their government that that was the reason for which they were fighting in a war.

This led to conscription of men into the US Military. This led to riots by the masses. This was Lincolns "Hail Mary".

The This War Measure by Lincoln also caused a desertion crisis amongst the Northern Army. Per noted historian , James McPherson ,.."in the Federal Army officers were quoted as saying things like: if emancipation is to be the policy of his war... I do. It care how quick the country goes to pot !"

Still waiting in a US government paper , congressional vote or documentation that slavery was the reason again for the Northern Invasion of the CSA. RWT, time to step up if you can?

i posted a link earlier that you must have missed:

http://www.civilwar.org/education/histor...oogle.com/

Again, slavery issues led to secession, secession led to war.

Economics led to war!! Taxation led to war!

If slavery led to war,.. why did Lincoln offer up to keep slavery in the South IF they would pay the requested tax?

Sure it was all about slavery that very few even owned.

From the Georgia Deceleration of Secession:
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. ...
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

From the Mississippi Deceleration of Secession:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and 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, 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, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, 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 by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

Now read Lincolns Inaugural Address:
http://www.civilwar.org/education/histor...oogle.com/

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.


You can deny all you like but the facts are the facts.

Deniers deny.

(05-02-2017 03:51 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:58 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Bottom line is we should have picked our own cotton. That said I don't believe not will I ever believe that slavery was the primary reason for the war.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

https://web.archive.org/web/200902011853...carsec.asp

Don't be a fool.

The only fool is the one who designates a symptom as the disease.

Slavery was a symptom. The disease is the exact same one that caused South Carolina to threaten to secede in the early 1830s over tariffs, oppressive federal overreach. The threat of secession was real enough that Governor Robert Hayne raised a militia of 2000 cavalry and 25,000 infantry to defend South Carolina against the federals.

This same disease will be the eventual end of the United States.

(05-02-2017 02:11 PM)VA49er Wrote:  IMO, slavery was not the numero uno reason the war started in the first place but it did become the numero uno reason as the war progressed. IMO, this transformation occurred due to political (keeping Europe out), as well as the overwhelming need to give a war weary Union a common ground to keep the battle going. One has to remember that up until Antietam, the South was kicking the North's as$ six ways from Sunday on the battlefield. Lincoln needed a reason to rally the home folk back behind the cause and abolishing slavery did the trick as they now had moral cause to fight for, not just preserving the Union.

Well I've also seen it said the army was for abolition before the rest of the population because they saw how essential slavery was to allowing the south to continue to fight. The slaves fed the south and built defenses.

(05-02-2017 02:55 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  RWT,
You can't handle the fact that great emancipator didn't care for the people you claim the war was about.. plain and simple.

Why did the EP only pertain to Southern Territories and states that had left BUT not the USA above the Mason Dixon line? I'm waiting...?!

Actually, it didn't apply to large portions of the seceding states. It didn't apply to territories the north had already recovered.

(05-02-2017 04:03 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 03:33 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:56 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Most Northerners were shocked at the War Measure of the Emancipation simply because they had not been told by their government that that was the reason for which they were fighting in a war.

This led to conscription of men into the US Military. This led to riots by the masses. This was Lincolns "Hail Mary".

The This War Measure by Lincoln also caused a desertion crisis amongst the Northern Army. Per noted historian , James McPherson ,.."in the Federal Army officers were quoted as saying things like: if emancipation is to be the policy of his war... I do. It care how quick the country goes to pot !"

Still waiting in a US government paper , congressional vote or documentation that slavery was the reason again for the Northern Invasion of the CSA. RWT, time to step up if you can?

i posted a link earlier that you must have missed:

http://www.civilwar.org/education/histor...oogle.com/

Again, slavery issues led to secession, secession led to war.

Economics led to war!! Taxation led to war!

If slavery led to war,.. why did Lincoln offer up to keep slavery in the South IF they would pay the requested tax?

Sure it was all about slavery that very few even owned.

From the Georgia Deceleration of Secession:
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. ...
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

From the Mississippi Deceleration of Secession:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and 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, 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, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, 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 by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

Now read Lincolns Inaugural Address:
http://www.civilwar.org/education/histor...oogle.com/

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.


You can deny all you like but the facts are the facts.

History would be simple if snippets supportings ones preconceived notions told the whole story. Reading the complete document in the context it was written is a lot of work.

(05-02-2017 08:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 03:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's a flawed statement. You weren't going to negotiate slavery. It was too much integrated into the economy of the south. It's like telling an oil exporting state that global warming is happening. When your pocket book is tied to it you can be convinced of a lot.

It was dying when mechanization (the Cotton gin) revitalized it. Mechanization would have eventually killed it. Even Brazil gave it up in 1875. We would have as well.

It would've become passe to an extent, but I don't think it would've become illegal across the country until much later. Comfortably into the 1900s. Even if they weren't in the fields, it was still a status symbol to have them in the house.

There would've had to be some movement to end it legally.

(05-02-2017 04:33 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 04:03 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 03:33 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:56 PM)BobL Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Most Northerners were shocked at the War Measure of the Emancipation simply because they had not been told by their government that that was the reason for which they were fighting in a war.

This led to conscription of men into the US Military. This led to riots by the masses. This was Lincolns "Hail Mary".

The This War Measure by Lincoln also caused a desertion crisis amongst the Northern Army. Per noted historian , James McPherson ,.."in the Federal Army officers were quoted as saying things like: if emancipation is to be the policy of his war... I do. It care how quick the country goes to pot !"



Still waiting in a US government paper , congressional vote or documentation that slavery was the reason again for the Northern Invasion of the CSA. RWT, time to step up if you can?

i posted a link earlier that you must have missed:

http://www.civilwar.org/education/histor...oogle.com/

Again, slavery issues led to secession, secession led to war.

Economics led to war!! Taxation led to war!

If slavery led to war,.. why did Lincoln offer up to keep slavery in the South IF they would pay the requested tax?

Sure it was all about slavery that very few even owned.

From the Georgia Deceleration of Secession:
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. ...
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

From the Mississippi Deceleration of Secession:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and 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, 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, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, 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 by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

Now read Lincolns Inaugural Address:
http://www.civilwar.org/education/histor...oogle.com/

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.


You can deny all you like but the facts are the facts.

History would be simple if snippets supportings ones preconceived notions told the whole story. Reading the complete document in the context it was written is a lot of work.

Then read the entire text as I have. I have provided the links in my posts(decloration of secession link is in another post in this thread. )

(05-02-2017 05:45 PM)BobL Wrote:  Then read the entire text as I have. I have provided the links in my posts(decloration of secession link is in another post in this thread. )

I have. I've read hundreds of documents, including family papers, about the subject. You are concentrating on the trigger not the root cause. The root cause for the secession of December 20, 1860 was the same as what caused the Nullification Crisis, the Principals of 98, Frie's Rebellion, and the Whiskey Rebellion.......federal government overreach.

(05-02-2017 03:51 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:58 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Bottom line is we should have picked our own cotton. That said I don't believe not will I ever believe that slavery was the primary reason for the war.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

https://web.archive.org/web/200902011853...carsec.asp

Don't be a fool.

that's fantastic but the North had slaves too. and they treated blacks like dirt after the war just like the south.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(05-01-2017 03:02 PM)VA49er Wrote:  There were numerous compromises in a bid to prevent war. Henry Clay comes to mind. Eventually the admittance of new states increased the tension and then Sumner got the sh!t beat out of him on the Senate floor and it was all down hill from there.

Always wondered what would've happened if the Compromise of 1850 fell apart and war started then. The fifties were a time when industrialization started to really ramp up for the north and population outpaced the soon-to-be confederacy a great deal, had the south seceded they may have stood a much better chance of winning the war. Especially when going up against Millard Fillmore as union commander-in-chief.

(05-02-2017 07:47 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 03:02 PM)VA49er Wrote:  There were numerous compromises in a bid to prevent war. Henry Clay comes to mind. Eventually the admittance of new states increased the tension and then Sumner got the sh!t beat out of him on the Senate floor and it was all down hill from there.

Always wondered what would've happened if the Compromise of 1850 fell apart and war started then. The fifties were a time when industrialization started to really ramp up for the north and population outpaced the soon-to-be confederacy a great deal, had the south seceded they may have stood a much better chance of winning the war. Especially when going up against Millard Fillmore as union commander-in-chief.

I don't think that the South could possibly have been in a better position than they were at the start of the war.

(05-02-2017 07:47 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(05-01-2017 03:02 PM)VA49er Wrote:  There were numerous compromises in a bid to prevent war. Henry Clay comes to mind. Eventually the admittance of new states increased the tension and then Sumner got the sh!t beat out of him on the Senate floor and it was all down hill from there.

Always wondered what would've happened if the Compromise of 1850 fell apart and war started then. The fifties were a time when industrialization started to really ramp up for the north and population outpaced the soon-to-be confederacy a great deal, had the south seceded they may have stood a much better chance of winning the war. Especially when going up against Millard Fillmore as union commander-in-chief.

The north was growing faster and industrializing and building railroads. It was definitely more one-sided in 1861.