Fact -When the Civil War started, Lincoln asked Robert E Lee to lead all Union troops

[trapdoor]

Georgia


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. 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.

South Carolina

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. 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, 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 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.

Mississippi

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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.

Just thought I'd share a couple with you....

Yes, what's your point -- I never said slavery wasn't an issue; but these are much like corporate "mission statements" today, a lot of words designed to sell a proposition, in this case, to convince enough people that "the other" wants to take over, and to get them to support the movement in question.

 

[middleview]

Yes, what's your point -- I never said slavery wasn't an issue; but these are much like corporate "mission statements" today, a lot of words designed to sell a proposition, in this case, to convince enough people that "the other" wants to take over, and to get them to support the movement in question.

Slavery is the first thing mentioned as the motivation for secession. That is my point.
Those articles were intended to convince the population of the states that slavery was in danger of being abolished if they remained part of the union.

 

[trapdoor]

Slavery is the first thing mentioned as the motivation for secession. That is my point.
Those articles were intended to convince the population of the states that slavery was in danger of being abolished if they remained part of the union.

And the fact remains that, according to Lincoln, slavery was not going to be abolished. Lincoln said he would allow slavery to continue to preserve the Union. What was at issue was whether it would be allowed to expand into new states -- thereby affecting the GOP/Democrat balance of power. It's like the argument over Puerto Rican statehood today. Puerto Rico has voted at least once to become a state, but it's unlikely to get approved statehood while the GOP is in control, because it is believed it would mean two additional Democratic senators, and up to five new Democratic representatives. Expand that to 20 states, instead of one, and then add slavery on top of it, and you can generate both secession and a shooting war.

 

[middleview]

And the fact remains that, according to Lincoln, slavery was not going to be abolished. Lincoln said he would allow slavery to continue to preserve the Union. What was at issue was whether it would be allowed to expand into new states -- thereby affecting the GOP/Democrat balance of power. It's like the argument over Puerto Rican statehood today. Puerto Rico has voted at least once to become a state, but it's unlikely to get approved statehood while the GOP is in control, because it is believed it would mean two additional Democratic senators, and up to five new Democratic representatives. Expand that to 20 states, instead of one, and then add slavery on top of it, and you can generate both secession and a shooting war.

Full circle...we are now back to the fact that slavery was the primary driving factor in the secession of the slave states...If there had been a single non-slave state that had seceded, you might be able to sell the idea that there were other issues.

 

[trapdoor]

Full circle...we are now back to the fact that slavery was the primary driving factor in the secession of the slave states...If there had been a single non-slave state that had seceded, you might be able to sell the idea that there were other issues.

Believe what you like. I'll go with statements like this, " I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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." Abraham Lincoln (letter to Horace Greeley).

Yeah, the war was fought about slavery. It was NOT fought OVER slavery.

 

[middleview]

Believe what you like. I'll go with statements like this, " I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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." Abraham Lincoln (letter to Horace Greeley).

Yeah, the war was fought about slavery. It was NOT fought OVER slavery.

Wow...that is really jumping through hoops to prove nothing at all. The slave states seceded because of their desire to preserve slavery. The northern states went to war to preserve the Union. I'm sure that many who supported the Federal side were also thinking that the end result would be abolition.

 

[trapdoor]

Wow...that is really jumping through hoops to prove nothing at all. The slave states seceded because of their desire to preserve slavery. The northern states went to war to preserve the Union. I'm sure that many who supported the Federal side were also thinking that the end result would be abolition.

When, prior to 1863, was the existence of slavery threatened? It was not. Yes, there were abolitionists, but they were fringe politicians -- Thad Stevens never had the votes. The issue, the real issue, was its expansion.

 

[middleview]

When, prior to 1863, was the existence of slavery threatened? It was not. Yes, there were abolitionists, but they were fringe politicians -- Thad Stevens never had the votes. The issue, the real issue, was its expansion.

You would have to refer to the articles of secession...since they place two things at the top of the list....one is abolition and their anticipation that the republican party will push abolition...the other is the fact that free states would not assist in the capture and repatriation of escaped slaves.

 

[trapdoor]

You would have to refer to the articles of secession...since they place two things at the top of the list....one is abolition and their anticipation that the republican party will push abolition...the other is the fact that free states would not assist in the capture and repatriation of escaped slaves.

Yes, as I said, they were propaganda.

 

[middleview]

Yes, as I said, they were propaganda.

If they were propaganda and not the actual opinions of the people signing the documents...then what was the purpose?

If the idea was to inflame the white population of the south...then what is your point?

 

[trapdoor]

Yes, as I said, they were propaganda.

They were propaganda, despite your little laughing emoji. They were statements made by politicians, supporting the cause they wanted to support and misleading the people they needed on their side. They weren't going to get public support by saying, "If you don't vote to secede, we'll lose power in Congress."

 

[middleview]

They were propaganda, despite your little laughing emoji. They were statements made by politicians, supporting the cause they wanted to support and misleading the people they needed on their side. They weren't going to get public support by saying, "If you don't vote to secede, we'll lose power in Congress."

Then the real point is that the population of the south was just racist enough to agree and it really doesn't matter what your opinion of the southern politicians is. The south seceded because of slavery.

 

[trapdoor]

Then the real point is that the population of the south was just racist enough to agree and it really doesn't matter what your opinion of the southern politicians is. The south seceded because of slavery.

Believe what you like.

 

[bdtex]

Lincoln said he would allow slavery to continue to preserve the Union. What was at issue was whether it would be allowed to expand into new states -- thereby affecting the GOP/Democrat balance of power.

There it is.

 

[middleview]

Believe what you like.

So then I have your permission to think that those who fought a war to preserve slavery for black Americans were racists...gee, thanks.

 

[trapdoor]

So then I have your permission to think that those who fought a war to preserve slavery for black Americans were racists...gee, thanks.

I never said that the CSA wasn't racist. I said there is a more nuanced cause to the war than just "It is over slavery." Slavery was a marker for a deeper political struggle.

 

[middleview]

I never said that the CSA wasn't racist. I said there is a more nuanced cause to the war than just "It is over slavery." Slavery was a marker for a deeper political struggle.

So the leaders of the secession stated in the articles of secession that the two primary reasons were the suspicion that the republican party was newly formed with the purpose of abolition and that the free states were violating the constitution by allowing runaway slaves to live openly in the free states and that southerners received no help in repatriating their property....you think that was propaganda and was not their real reason and yet they gathered an army to their stated reasoning. The people who fought the war did so to preserve slavery.

 

[trapdoor]

So the leaders of the secession stated in the articles of secession that the two primary reasons were the suspicion that the republican party was newly formed with the purpose of abolition and that the free states were violating the constitution by allowing runaway slaves to live openly in the free states and that southerners received no help in repatriating their property....you think that was propaganda and was not their real reason and yet they gathered an army to their stated reasoning. The people who fought the war did so to preserve slavery.

Yes, leaders wrote propaganda -- they wanted to separate the nations over that issue, which stood as a marker for the struggle in congress. You're constructing a circular argument.

 

[middleview]

Yes, leaders wrote propaganda -- they wanted to separate the nations over that issue, which stood as a marker for the struggle in congress. You're constructing a circular argument.

No, you've affirmed my original post. The South went to war to preserve slavery.

 

[trapdoor]

No, you've affirmed my original post. The South went to war to preserve slavery.

Slavery would have been preserved longer if they hadn't gone to war. In 1860 the issue was NOT preservation, but expansion.