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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (489741)	11/9/2003 2:58:20 AM
From: Peter O'Brien	Respond to of 769670

I agree. It also nearly caused a war in 1832 when South Carolina was on the brink of seceding over the issue of tariffs. Only a last-minute compromise on the tariff prevented South Carolina's secession (and the war that would have surely resulted).

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (489741)	11/9/2003 10:37:58 AM
From: greg s	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

re: I do not disagree with you that slavery caused succession As a person who was born and raised in the south, two corrections: 1. The word is secession, not succession. 2. Secession (and ultimately the Civil War) were events directly tied to the issue of states rights. The slavery issue was but one of many tied to the south's desire to preserve states rights. When the cretin sylvester stated: The confederate flag southern whites are nothing but dumb racist white trash living in trailers ...he was, oddly, displaying his own bigoted attitude. Clearly, this person knows nothing about southerners or living in the south.

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (489741)	11/9/2003 8:10:13 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769670

I do not disagree with you that slavery caused succession. But slavery did not cause the civil war. The act of succession was at the heart of the war. The act of secession occurred and was maintained by the South because the South refused to accept a halt in slavery’s expansion. Since the south would not accept a halt here, and Lincoln would not relent on it, the South broke Union. Lincoln did nothing in response to Southern secession. When he went to deliver supplies to the federal fort Sumter, the South fired upon him beginning the Civil War. Even afterward, Lincoln repeatedly informed the South that if it would cease hostilities, it would be welcomed back into the Union. But the South refused to re-enter the Union because it refused to accept a halt in the expansion of slavery. Slavery was the chief and immediate cause of the Civil War. It was the cause of Southern secession and it was the cause that kept the South from rejoining the Union even when Lincoln invited its return. If, as you say, the south would have been complacent with the fact that slavery would be contained to those states that had established slavery… Please. I never said the South would have been complacent with this. The South was not complacent with it and that is precisely why it fought the war. My contention is that succession is what caused the war. Not slavery itself. When Confederate leaders repeatedly publish official correspondence that comes right out and states in plain English that they formed a Confederacy to protect slavery, only an idiot would contend they were not fighting to protect slavery. ”[Our Confederacy’s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.] ”History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity.” (Journal of the Secession Covention of Texas, pp 120-123, E. Winkler ed.)