See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Why the South Was Right, the North Wrong
Source:
Future of Freedom Foundation
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 14, 2010
Author: Doug Bandow
Post Date: 2010-10-14 12:26:23 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 1421
Comments: 30
THE VICTORS WRITE history books, and the dominant accounts of the Civil War reflect the victorious perspective: misguided Southerners sought to destroy democratic governance and preserve slavery. Led by the heroic Abraham Lincoln, Northerners responded by saving the Union and emancipating the slaves. And for leading his moral crusade, Lincoln is America’s greatest president, martyred in his hour of triumph. Charles Adams, best known for his books on taxation, takes aim at this history. His analysis of what more accurately would be called the War of Northern Aggression is a bit different: With the passing of time, all wars seem pointless. The American Civil War certainly looks that way at this time in history. Heroes begin to look like fools. The glorious dead, the young soldiers who suffered and died, need to be pitied, and the leaders who led them to early graves need to be lynched. In that war, as in so many wars, the wrong people died. When in the Course of Human Events offers a sustained challenge to much of the conventional wisdom about the conflict. Indeed, the book’s title is a bit misleading. Adams doesn’t so much develop a comprehensive argument for secession as puncture the worst hypocrisies surrounding the North’s decision to initiate war. Observes Adams: “Lincoln’s concern that government ‘of the people’ would perish from the earth if the North lost may have been the biggest absurdity of all.” Particularly valuable is Adams’s critique of Lincoln. The victors’ history books tend to glide by Lincoln’s constitutional usurpations and violations. Adams does not. Even those familiar with the 16th president’s unconstitutional militia call, suspension of habeas corpus, and other lawless acts may not know that Lincoln ordered the arrest of U.S. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney for ruling that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus without congressional approval violated the law. Only the failure of a U.S. marshal to carry out the order “saved the president from what would have been his worst crime against the constitutional scheme of government,” the author writes. The tariff and the war Adams’s most detailed argument, with interesting citations to domestic and foreign opinion of the time, is that the federal tariff was more responsible than slavery for the war. Certainly the tariff was a factor in the North’s decision to use force to prevent the South from leaving. Abolition was not particularly important: as Adams details, most Northern states shared the racism of the South, and several refused to allow free blacks to enter. Concern over the effects of lost revenue — the tariff was the federal government’s most important tax — and creation of a veritable free-trade zone in the South stoked Northern opposition to secession. Still, protectionism alone might not have been enough to justify a Northern invasion. Raw nationalism and anger over the South’s decision to pick up its marbles and go home also were important. Taken together, the combination proved irresistible, especially when most war hawks thought that little fighting would be necessary to reunite the states. This fatal underestimation of the costs of war, by both sides, might have been the decisive factor in leading the Southern states to secede and the Northern states to try to stop them. Adams’s emphasis on the tariff is less satisfactory when applied to the departing states. Although the protective tariffs passed at the behest of Northern manufacturing interests rankled Southerners, Lincoln’s election did not dramatically impact that issue. The rush out of the Union by the seven Deep South states reflected anger over the triumph of someone viewed as hostile to the South and fundamental fears about the security of the “peculiar institution.” Adams argues that the institution of slavery had never been more secure — but sometimes even otherwise rational people act irrationally. Indeed, the slave states could fear the continuing effectiveness of paper guarantees, especially if Lincoln used federal institutions to campaign against slavery. Not one to shy from controversy, Adams charges Northern generals with barbarism and war crimes. He contends that the actions of the Ku Klux Klan after the war — before its later lawless campaign against helpless blacks — could be understood in the context of defending Southern society from “the Yankee invaders” during Reconstruction. Finally, Adams offers a wonderfully vicious parsing of Lincoln’s celebrated Gettysburg Address. It might be “good poetry,” Adams writes, but that didn’t make it “good thinking,” based as it was on “a number of errors and falsehoods.” Standard histories of the War between the States make an inviting target for debunking. Adams joyously shoots away. Most of his criticisms hit home, but you don’t have to agree with all of them to recognize that he is right in calling the Civil War “a great national tragedy in every conceivable way,” including “a botched emancipation; the extermination of a whole generation of young men, including hundreds of thousands of teenage boys; the destruction of the constitutional scheme of limited federal power.” It is a war that should never have been fought.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Turtle (#0)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
Good article, thanks for posting it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that is the reason which prompted Nathan Bedford Forrest to found the Klan. When it became a lawless lynch mob he ordered it to disband, which it did not, and withdrew from membership and support. Forrest is often criticized, unjustly, for founding the Klan but his reasons for founding it are not what his critics assume and promote.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
The South was morally right. __________________________________________________________ "If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not a rebellion. His [Jefferson Davis] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason." __________________________________________________________ Those alleging that slavery was not the primary motivating factor for secession need to the read the secession statements of the southern states, for a starter. They can be found online. Then read Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone speech. Here are the relevant parts, spoken by the Vice president of the Confederacy: But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
Allow me to parse his statements: The Declaration of Independence was wrong when it said all men are created equal. "Science" has now advanced to the point where it can "prove" the Declaration wrong. We (the southerners) now know we are the superior race and the africans should be enslaved by us. Therefore we are morally right in seceding. There you have it.
very interesting...
Thank you for your open mindedness. I am a conservative, not a neo-conservative. I am also a proud son of the state of Arkansas, although I do not have the privilege of living there now. I bleed Razorback red (cardinal, actually) every Saturday, though I graduated from ASU. Lincoln said every political sentiment he ever had flowed from the Declaration of Independence. He also said that created equal did not mean in every respect, but that Jefferson "defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal – equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This they said, and this they meant." By the time of secession the southern view of slavery had changed from what it had been at the time of the founding. By 1861 slavery was viewed as a positive good by the South. Stephens had his history right in that regard. And Lincoln was not an abolitionist [contrary to current Northern revisionist efforts] as he pointed out in his first inaugural address: Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: "Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes." I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another. end of quote The only reason I participate in these discussions is that I hate historical revisionism, equally from the right and the left, from the North and South. That the South seceded over tariffs or over centralization of power in Washington -- and that slavery played no role in their decision -- contradicts the words of the southern people who seceded. Let's do them the justice of not rewriting their history.
Only five percent of Southerners owned slaves. The other 95% were fighting because the North attacked them, Your argument is destroyed.
"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reform and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable." - Thomas Jefferson
First few sentences of the Georgia secession statement: "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. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war." Shall we go through them all?
Here's the history that led to the Civil War: In 1820 the issue of slavery reared its ugly head over the question of the (then) western territories: would they come in as slave or free? The Missouri Compromise allowed Missouri, north of 33-30, to come in as a slave state, and Maine to come in as a free state. 33-30 was thereafter to be the demarcation line for slave versus free. In 1846 we fought the Mexican-American War and got more territory to the west, all the way to the Pacific. This raised the issue of slavery once more. Three positions were articulated regarding this territory and its ultimate admission to the Union. 1. Congress has the right and duty to outlaw slavery in territories under its control. 2. Popular sovereignty: let the people in the territories decide whether to be slave or free. 3. Slavery must be protected wherever there is a slave owner. The Second position was taken up by Stephen Douglas and enacted into law in 1854, with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Then, in 1857 the Supreme Court, Taney Chief Justice, handed down the Dred Scott decision. This decision basically held that Negroes were not persons under the Constitution, that Scott could not bring suit, and that the Constitution protected the slave owner in the ownership of his property. This decision meant effectively that slavery was national, that a slave owner could take his slave anywhere in the Union and expect protection of the law. In the Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858, Lincoln forced Douglas to defend the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which from the Southern Democrat point of view undermined their big victory in Dred Scott. Douglas had to argue that the people of a state or territory could vote slavery down. This angered the Southern Democrats and effectively split the Democrat party on regional lines. At the Democrat convention of 1860, the Southern Democrats argued for a platform plank that embraced the Dred Scott decision. Slavery is national. The Northern Democrats refused, so the Southern Democrats bolted the convention and held their own, the first act of secession in what would become the Civil War. The Southern Democrats ran Breckenridge, and put position 3 above into their platform. The northern Democrats ran Douglas and put position 2 in their platform. The Republicans ran Lincoln, and put position 1 in their platform. When you read the Georgia secession statement above in light of this history, it becomes very clear what the Georgians were referring to. When they say "They have . . . striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic" they are referring to the Republicans' intention to ban slavery in the territories, and that's why they seceded. Secession was over the Republican victory and what it meant for new territories -- whether they would be slave or free. No amount of historical revisionism can change the facts. You can rewrite the history books, but the original documents would have to be destroyed in order to make it stick. As long as we can get the original documents the truth will prevail. Thank you for reading.
There seems to be a large number of historical revisionists (something akin to a marxist) around here, who want to defend a South that never was. When presented with the South that actually was, they fall strangely silent. Hmm.
Actually, I stopped reading your BS after a few sentences.
WWGPD? - (What Would General Pinochet Do?)
I hardly consider the small number of people who responded to Turtles article as being a "large number." That's nothing more than hyperbole on your part, especially since out of the five people who responded prior to your post, one person's comment was directed at the destruction the Civil War caused, one person said it was a good article and one person commented on the KKK. That leaves two people who actually had anything to say about the issue of slavery itself. Besides that, there was much more to that Georgia Secession document than the one paragraph you posted. After reading the complete document, it seems apparent to me that it is impossible to separate slavery from states rights. They went together like hand and glove. One was just as important to the South as the other as the document clearly proves.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
In the first session of the Congress that met after the war started something called the Crittenden Resolution was passed. It assured the South that abolishing slavery was not the intent of the Union. Interesting they did not feel the need to pass a resolution promising to respect states rights in a general way. The political history of the country, from the Mexican-American War until the Civil War, was centered around the new territories, and whether they would come in as slave or free. The issue was so central that it sparked the Kansas-Nebraska Act, then the Dred Scott decision. The electoral victory of Lincoln was assured when the southern Democrats bolted their own convention, not over some generalized states rights, but over the fact that the northern Democrats would not include a plank in the party platform endorsing the Dred Scott decision. The comment about wide spread historical revisionism is supported by the two previous replies.
First few sentences of the Mississippi secession statement: 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. 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.
First sentences of the Texas secession statement, mentioning the western territories, and the Republicans' desire to exclude slave owners from those territories: The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof, The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union. Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them? The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.
I also thought this part of the Texas secession statement was worth noting: In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
Actually, you stopped reading the speech of the Vice President of the Confederate States of America, because it hurt you to read it. But you can attribute his words to me if it makes you feel better.
If the main goal of the federals was truly to free the slaves, it would have been considerably less costly and less bloody if the federals were to simply buy their freedom. Since that option was never seriously pursued, I must conclude that the main goal of the civil war was something entirely different than merely freeing the slaves.
I don't think you read the secession statements posted above. For one person to buy something from another, the other has to be willing to sell. Widespread revisionism. Widespread.
Anything can be had for a price, and everybody has a price they are willing to sell. Anybody who says otherwise is a liar. My guess is that most if not all slave owners would have been willing to sell their property near the same price they bought their slave. If they refused to sell at a reasonable price, a reasonable person deals with them on an individual basis, using the court system. A reasonable, non-jewish person doesn't start a bloody war over a few dollars worth of replaceable personal property. There is little evidence the federals even contemplated this option, which indicates the federal warhawks had less-than-noble ulterior motives. This paradigm has nothing to do with revisionism. It assumes basic rationality of the parties in dispute. It is highly likely that warhawks with a hidden agenda promoted war using the slave issue to whip public opinion to their advantage. Large-scale public manipulation is in evidence again today, with neocon warhawks using lying propaganda to whip public opinion, to support their ulterior motives. The neocons of today are the philosophical descendents of past federal warhawks.
Uh......no But nice try scumbag.
WWGPD? - (What Would General Pinochet Do?)
The idea that 95% of population of the South that did not own slaves would to war to defend slavery is so ludicrous that no one in their right mind could believe it.
"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reform and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable." - Thomas Jefferson
You really are a dunce. In South Carolina the slaves were more than 50% of the population. And you evidently did not read the secession statements of Mississippi or Texas. Dunce.
My encounter here with you folks reminds me of the scene in Huck Finn when Colonel Sherburn faces down the mob. Maybe ya'll should read it sometime. Over and out.
Large-scale public manipulation is in evidence again today, with neocon warhawks using lying propaganda to whip public opinion, to support their ulterior motives. The neocons of today are the philosophical descendents of past federal warhawks. that's a very good point. bondhue, i found what you posted interesting material.
I believe Turtle was referring to the 95% of the non-slave population of the south, when he said 95% of the confederate population didn't own slaves, and would not be motivated to fight to support only slavery. This is fairly obvious, which makes your logic suspect. If you were to argue that most confederates fought to preserve racial segregation, you would be believable. But you didn't.
#2. To: Turtle (#0)
#3. To: Turtle (#0)
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#4. To: Turtle (#0)
Not one to shy from controversy, Adams charges Northern generals with barbarism and war crimes. He contends that the actions of the Ku Klux Klan after the war — before its later lawless campaign against helpless blacks — could be understood in the context of defending Southern society from “the Yankee invaders” during Reconstruction.
#5. To: Turtle (#0)
Lincoln’s constitutional usurpations and violations.
The South was legally right.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#6. To: Turtle (#0)
-- Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1867.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#7. To: (#6)
#8. To: All (#7)
#9. To: bondhue (#7)
#10. To: christine (#9)
#11. To: bondhue (#10)
#12. To: Turtle (#11)
#13. To: All (#12)
#14. To: Turtle (#11)
#15. To: bondhue (#13)
Thank you for reading.
#16. To: bondhue, all (#14)
(Edited)
There seems to be a large number of historical revisionists (something akin to a marxist) around here,
#17. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#16)
#18. To: All (#17)
#19. To: All (#18)
(Edited)
#20. To: All (#19)
#21. To: Flintlock (#15)
Actually, I stopped reading your BS after a few sentences.
#22. To: Turtle (#0)
(Edited)
#23. To: Googolplex (#22)
#24. To: bondhue (#23)
(Edited)
#25. To: bondhue (#21)
Actually, you stopped reading the speech of the Vice President of the Confederate States of America, because it hurt you to read it.
#26. To: Googolplex (#22)
Since that option was never seriously pursued, I must conclude that the main goal of the civil war was something entirely different than merely freeing the slaves.
#27. To: Turtle (#26)
#28. To: All (#27)
#29. To: Googolplex, bondhue (#24)
It is highly likely that warhawks with a hidden agenda promoted war using the slave issue to whip public opinion to their advantage.
#30. To: bondhue (#27)
(Edited)
You really are a dunce. In South Carolina the slaves were more than 50% of the population. And you evidently did not read the secession statements of Mississippi or Texas. Dunce.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest