Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PatiBob who wrote (25)	12/28/2000 9:16:25 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

From the Northern perspective, initially at least legally it was just a property dispute: Message 15090116 But slavery underlay all all the way through. It was the reason a significant fraction of the North was willing to fight initially and that fraction just kept growing. Lincoln was (possibly) behind the populace in this. And there was significant opposition to freeing the slaves in the North. Irish (and lower class) New York City residents rioted when Lincoln started a draft in 1863. Partly out of opposition to being drafted, but also because they dreaded the economic competition freed slaves would pose to them. The troops who fought at Gettysburg were marched straight to NYC to put down those riots when the battle was over.

To: PatiBob who wrote (25)	12/29/2000 9:24:54 AM
From: John Curtis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

PatiBob: Northerners taxing the South to death as cause for a Southern split from the Union? Hmmmmmm....that's an interesting idea. Yup, I'd love to see some data on it. In my view slavery was the populist position that drove the Civil War, and both sides developed their propaganda positions accordingly. The North, obviously using the slavery vs freedom card. The South? Yankee "Imperialism" and the evils of Yankee industrialization. The Civil War certainly presented some "firsts," and was basically fought by "amateurs." That is, basically farmers and civilians. This is probably one reason why the mortality rate was so horrific. It was also one of the first, if not the first, war that ushered in killing machine "participation" a la gatlin gun fashion. And this certainly helped in the horrific category (the irony here is Robert Gatlin thought the invention of a high rate of fire automatic gun would reduce the number of soldiers required to man the battlefield, reducing their exposure to disease and other hazards of war). It was the beginnings of industrialized warfare. So is it any wonder the North won? They had an industrial and economic base against which the South ultimately couldn't compete. And the rest became, as they say, history. But speaking of machine guns. I think I favor this approach where weapons are concerned: surefireproducts.com Paint balls, anyone? ;-) John~

To: PatiBob who wrote (25)	12/30/2000 1:47:05 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 23908

I was born in, and brought up in the Deep South and fed that same line about tariffs and taxation being the cause of the Civil War when I was growing up - which was before integration. It's false. Slavery was the reason that the South seceded from the Union after Lincoln became president. Lincoln was the first Republican elected president. The Republican party was formed to fight slavery. Thus, it is no coincidence that the South began seceding from the Union within weeks after Lincoln was elected. The 1860 Republican Party platform: furman.edu Remember that the South was threatening to secede from the Union over slavery long before Lincoln was elected. Here is Senator Daniel Webster's 1850 speech in favor of the Fugitive Slave Act - at the time, the South was threatening secession. dartmouth.edu The galvanizing factor that led to Lincoln's election was the Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court held that blacks, even free blacks, were not citizens of the United States and so could not sue in federal court. The opinion further held that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The result of Dred Scott was that slavery could exist in the western states, and as these were added to the Union, they would outnumber the Northern states. The North had been willing to tolerate slavery as long as it remained in the South, but was unwilling to tolerate slavery in the North - as you suggest, part of the reason was that cheap slave labor would hurt the already impoverished working class. The Dred Scott decision: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com An easy read on the Dred Scott decision: odur.let.rug.nl odur.let.rug.nl Lest you harbor any doubt, here are the declarations of South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas giving the reasons they seceded - preservation of the right to slavery is foremost. members.aol.com

To: PatiBob who wrote (25)	12/30/2000 2:04:45 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Here are some interesting excerpts from an address to the Texas Secession Convention from a commissioner sent from Louisiana (which is where I am from): >>Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery . . . . Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. . . . The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. . . . I am authorized to say to your honorable body that Louisiana does not expect any beneficial result from the peace conference now assembled at Washington. She is unwilling that her action should depend on the border States. Her interests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of asking for, or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual. << members.aol.com