Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[ole]

From the secession of South Carolina (December 20, 1860) to the surrender of Fort Sumter (April 13, 1861) how many Federal soldiers/employees were killed or wounded?-

This is likely overkill, Border, I think we've done the thing on "imprisoned." But if you or I were to take a bank and shoot a lot of ammo and not actually kill anybody, is that going to keep us from the verdict? "Yes, your honor, we shot the bejesus out of that place, but we didn't actually kill anybody." C'mon. That arguement won't fly anywhere.

ole

[Catherine Hopley]

Is there really no way to discuss this subject without descending into personal antipathy?

I have just reviewed the posts in this thread since I joined it. There is quite a promising discussion in process, but is it really necessary to punctuate it with comments about other posters being "ignorant" and not knowing what they are talking about, and how their opinions are "crap"?

I cannot see how this oafishness helps anyone. We are all adults, and if we join a forum discussing a contentious subject like the WBTS we must expect to read opinions to which we object. Anyone who finds it impossible to keep his or her emotions in check should simply leave.

I get the distinct impression that some people here view their fellow posters as the real prey, rather than the cause which they espouse.

I deplore the Union cause, but have no trouble at all making friends with Unionists. I wish that others could make the same distinction.

[Johan Steele]

Is there really no way to discuss this subject without descending into personal antipathy?

I have just reviewed the posts in this thread since I joined it. There is quite a promising discussion in process, but is it really necessary to punctuate it with comments about other posters being "ignorant" and not knowing what they are talking about, and how their opinions are "crap"?

I cannot see how this oafishness helps anyone. We are all adults, and if we join a forum discussing a contentious subject like the WBTS we must expect to read opinions to which we object. Anyone who finds it impossible to keep his or her emotions in check should simply leave.

I get the distinct impression that some people here view their fellow posters as the real prey, rather than the cause which they espouse.

I deplore the Union cause, but have no trouble at all making friends with Unionists. I wish that others could make the same distinction.

Ma'am I do not view you as prey; I do view the cause you espouse as the very antithesis of everything this country has come to stand for.

I suppose the personnal antipathy used from this side of the aisle is on par w/ the listing of only a couple points as the ONLY possible points, comments upon ones education, their use of the language, charges of childishness, "it's not rocket science" etc ad nauseum.  Though I readily admit upon review one side shows considerable more bluntness and avoids any falacious claims that it isn't there.  More honest use of the language perhaps?  From your first post here (have you posted on any other thread?) you have made it clear that any who disagreed w/ your view were in need of education.  It's been done eloquently and in very subtle ways and I must applaud your superb use of the subtle nuances of the language.  I assure you though my education has been well under way for better than thirty years now.  But it comes down to the same old... stuff; the same old charges made when one realizes they're standing on a piling instead of the pier.  When facts fail emotion has to rule.  Now I suppose you believe Ole or I should leave because... we are interested in the truth instead of Lost Cause rhetoric?  Or is it because we dare to express our ideas as different than yours?  Forgive me but that sounds a whole lot like a much earlier era in this country where people were expected to know their place and if they didn't...

I've been on a variety of boards for most of a decade, seen the same old arguments come and go w/ just a names change.  Hell, I've seen arguments literally word for word cut and pasted from various talking point sites.  I've watched this site get "boycotted" by "those friendly to the South" because Ann dared prove she was interested in true history and learning about the war and it's intricicies instead of simply regurgitating Lost Cause rhetoric.

An ignorance of contemporay affairs is that ignorance of said subject, now my old college Webster's New World Dictionary defines ignorant as an adj 1. lacking knowledge or experiance.  2. caused by or showing a lack of these 3. unaware (of) -ignorantly.  In the context used the word was appropriate.  When accused of making "outlandish" claims I have shown my references and reasoning, I have more than made it clear why the mentioned view was what I would consider willfully ignorant.  I make no apologies for such.

Some make it clear they deplore, despise etc the US (they typically use the term Union to disguise such) and all it has ever stood from from their first post.  I hate to burst your bubble but this is not unusual, in fact it is all but common place.  Some dive into a thread w/ the intent to bury it's premise by blaming the US for everything under the sun in an effort to bury the premise; in fact the same tactic is being used currently on another board w/ far less intelligence than on this one.

So call me what you will, It won't be the first time.

Now for the edification of anyone actually trying to learn something from this thread you've yet to in any way prove your point that slavery really was not the root cause of secession and war.

[Catherine Hopley]

Two points which are perhaps worth considering are the following:

It's hardly surprising that we can't agree on what caused the war when we have distinctly different conceptions of when it began.

From the Union point of view, it seems to have begun with the firing at Sumter; from a Confederate perspective it either began with Lincoln's call for troops or when Federal troops actually entered Confederate territory.

To that extent, this debate is futile. But never mind: it still brings up interesting ideas and evidence. Which brings me to the second point:

One of the philosophical issues which divided the two sides was that of minority rights within a democracy. Unionists often accuse the South of riding roughshod over the wishes of the majority of the American people. I don't think this accusation is absurd: I think it is perfectly understandable.

Think of the last time you voted in an election and your side lost. You may well have cursed your fellow-citizens' stupidity; you may have voiced the opinion that the country was about to go down the tube; nevertheless, you respected the result and resigned yourself to trying to put things right the next time you went to the ballot.

One of the reasons why it is relatively easy to accept an adverse result is that you will almost certainly know people who voted for the other party. You may have them as colleagues at work, or as neighbours. Some of your closest friends may vote for them; some of your relatives may do so.

It's a totally different matter when political differences coincide with geographical ones. When that happens, the larger region has the power to vote for a government which will protect its interests at the expense of the smaller one. If such a government is elected, the result is perfectly democratic...but is it just?

If the demographic shift in favour of one region is a permanent one - as it clearly was in mid-19th century America - that leaves the smaller region in a  position where it can expect to lose all future elections and be permanently controlled by a government which doesn't have its interests at heart.

Now that wouldn't justify a coup d'etat. The minority cannot march on the national capital and impose its own choice of government on the whole country. But, surely, in such a situation it has the right to remove itself from the old nation and pursue its own destiny. This may involve some damage to the material interests of the majority region, but that is the lesser of the evils. It is preferable to forcing people to be part of a country against their will.

That, in a nutshell, is why my sympathies are with the Confederate cause. It has absolutely nothing to do with being hostile towards the modern United States.

[BorderRuffian]

Incidently you've never answered my question about at what point are attacks upon your country are no longer acceptable and warrant a reaction.

Seizing forts?
Seizing mints?
Seizing armories?
Seizing ships?
Shelling forts?
Imprisoning it's soldiers?

At what point is enough enough?  In the case of the US it was the last two.

The CS started the war and the US ended it.

What did the American Revolutionaries do with British property during the Revolutionary War?

[ole]

What did the American Revolutionaries do with British property during the Revolutionary War?

Exactly. The rebels in 1776 acknowledged that they were rebels in a rebellion. And they stole pretty much everything English they could get their hands on.

Contrast them with the rebels of 1860 to 65 who insisted, and still do, that their rebellion was a legal secession. If it wasn't for that insistence on dubious legaliity, I'd be all for their stealing everything they could get their hands on, as well. That's the nature of a rebellion.

But no. It was not rebellion but secession, therefore the thefts can only be presented as the rightful confiscation of property that might be called theirs. Anything inconsistent here?

ole

[BorderRuffian]

Exactly. The rebels in 1776 acknowledged that they were rebels in a rebellion. And they stole pretty much everything English they could get their hands on.

Contrast them with the rebels of 1860 to 65 who insisted, and still do, that their rebellion was a legal secession. If it wasn't for that insistence on dubious legaliity, I'd be all for their stealing everything they could get their hands on, as well. That's the nature of a rebellion.

But no. It was not rebellion but secession, therefore the thefts can only be presented as the rightful confiscation of property that might be called theirs. Anything inconsistent here?

ole

On what Stone Tablet is it inscribed-  "Rebellion beith thou legal....Secession beith thou illegal"   

[ole]

To me, a revolution is a successful rebellion. Pretty much everyone agrees that if you rebel, you takes your chances. It is your natural right to give it a shot. To put lipstick on it after the fact is another matter.

The seceding states gave it a try. They lost. No revolution. Just a rebellion. Don't exactly need an inscribed stone tablet to add smoke. Legalities aside, they did, in fact, lose. Was it fair? Maybe. Maybe not. But they did lose. And the cost was horrific.

ole

[Catherine Hopley]

"I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself." A. Lincoln
 
Hello Ole,

I've just noticed this quote at the bottom your posts. It gives food for thought. I suppose one could borrow the basic idea and say:

"I never knew a man who wished to be coerced into giving allegiance to a nation. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself."

What do you think?

CH


 

[ole]

Trust me on this one. You don't want to know.

ole