Sure. You got me. White southerners where dumb racist hillbillies vs the freedom loving all folks are equal enlightened folk.

Those views are still held by the left against the right. Though the right changed the left did not.

Let that sink in.

usmcbrooks said:

---

Something something War of Northern Aggression....

---

just because you don't like doesn't make it untrue.

txwxman said:

---

Why do Aggies insist on occasionally embarrassing themselves and the university by posting pro-South revisionist drivel?

---

Its done because the Northern narrative was false to start with and history is on the side of the truth, not what some liberal arts cum history teacher or even better PE coach cum history teacher told you was history.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Sure. You got me. White southerners where dumb racist hillbillies vs the freedom loving all folks are equal enlightened folk.

Those views are still held by the left against the right. Though the right changed the left did not.

Let that sink in.

---

What a weird, emotional response. The Northerners were definitely racist by today's terms and they were not morally superior, not that I've seen anyone make that argument at all. Which makes your response absurd and emotional like a liberal.

---

What was emotional? You posted chosen extracts to make it seem as though white southerners fought the civil war over the racial inferiority of black people. But I am the emotional one? Get real.

txwxman said:

---

Why do Aggies insist on occasionally embarrassing themselves and the university by posting pro-South revisionist drivel?

---

NOBODY is defending slavery. We're just tired of the narrative that the North abolished slavery first because they were enlightened anti-racists. Whereas the reality is that they just didn't have a demand for slaves due to not having the right climate or soil to grow cotton, and having more immigrants to provide cheap non-slave labor.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Sure. You got me. White southerners where dumb racist hillbillies vs the freedom loving all folks are equal enlightened folk.

Those views are still held by the left against the right. Though the right changed the left did not.

Let that sink in.

---

What a weird, emotional response. The Northerners were definitely racist by today's terms and they were not morally superior, not that I've seen anyone make that argument at all. Which makes your response absurd and emotional like a liberal.

---

What was emotional? You posted chosen extracts to make it seem as though white southerners fought the civil war over the racial inferiority of black people. But I am the emotional one? Get real.

---

Nobody called the southerners dumb racists hillbillies or that the northerners were freedom loving people. You got your feelings hurt because I provided evidence that many in the south supported slavery from a moral and economic standpoint, not just economic.

Those "extracts" were direct quotes across multiple significant documents of the time. Why do those facts bother you? As you'd say, they don't care about your beliefs or feelings.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Sure. You got me. White southerners where dumb racist hillbillies vs the freedom loving all folks are equal enlightened folk.

Those views are still held by the left against the right. Though the right changed the left did not.

Let that sink in.

---

What a weird, emotional response. The Northerners were definitely racist by today's terms and they were not morally superior, not that I've seen anyone make that argument at all. Which makes your response absurd and emotional like a liberal.

---

What was emotional? You posted chosen extracts to make it seem as though white southerners fought the civil war over the racial inferiority of black people. But I am the emotional one? Get real.

---

Nobody called the southerners dumb racists hillbillies or that the northerners were freedom loving people. You got your feelings hurt because I provided evidence that many in the south supported slavery from a moral and economic standpoint, not just economic.

Those "extracts" were direct quotes across multiple significant documents of the time. Why do those facts bother you? As you'd say, they don't care about your beliefs or feelings.

---

We can clutter this up as I can produce as many if not more direct quotes from many northerners both before and after the civil war that considered the negro race inferior (using the terminology from the quotes / time period).

What is bothersome is to pretend as if it was only southerners with those particular feelings.

You can believe it was more moral v economic, but I can promise you are not overcoming my knowledge on this subject that it was driven very much by economic reasons and by the NE elitists thinking those dumb southerners needed to be kept in line and were getting a bit big for they britches.

Again, nobody has claimed the North was morally superior. You are tilting at windmills.

I'd be happy to consider your knowledge on the subject but you've not shared anything of consequence.

How do you explain that one of the few differences between the CS and US constitution was the article that made slavery a perpetual institution for which congress had no ability to revoke it?

That alone says slavery drove the breakup.

BQ78 said:

---

How do you explain that one of the few differences between the CS and US constitution was the article that made slavery a perpetual institution for which congress had no ability to revoke it?

That alone says slavery drove the breakup.

---

Slavery at the time remained key to the economic survival of the South, particularly as an independent "nation".

Congress didn't have the power in the US Constitution to end it, hence the 13th Amendment.

What am I missing?

BQ78 said:

---

How do you explain that one of the few differences between the CS and US constitution was the article that made slavery a perpetual institution for which congress had no ability to revoke it?

That alone says slavery drove the breakup.

---

Slavery had been legal in the United States from the beginning. I carefully explained the reason for Secession about 87 posts ago. When he heard about the prospect of it, Lincoln said, "but what about my tariff?"
1860 MORRILL TARIFF:
In response to the slow recovery of northern states from the Financial Crisis of 1857 caused by the sinking of the S.S. Central America carrying 30,000 pounds of gold destined for northern banks, and the failure of Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company (Ohio Life), In May 1860, Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Act proposed by Republican Congressmen Justin Morrill (Former Whig). It raised the average tariff from 15% to 37%, with increases to 48% within 3 years on imported trade goods. Only one southern representative voted for the Tariff. With U.S. Tariff Review burdens already falling disproportionately on the southern states, accounting for ~87% of the total BEFORE the Morrill Tariff! Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the northern states at the expense of the south. The tariff was the twelfth of the seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party, and Lincoln promised (if elected) to sign the Morrill Tariff Act into law and use military force to collect it as part of his agreement to defect from the Whig Party to the new Republican Party. Southern States began secession discussions and proceedings in anticipation of these tariffs.
27 September 1860, Republican Leader Thaddeus Stevens, sponsor of the Morrill Tariff, told a New York City audience that "the Tariff would impoverish the southern and western states, but that was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers." Northern Republicans and Whigs cheered, Southern leaders were indignant and called for nullification and/or Secession. It was the twelfth of the seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party (Unconstitutional federal redistribution of wealth)
In an editorial in the Charleston Mercury, "To plunder the South for the benefit of the North, by a new Protective Tariff, will be one of their first measures of Northern sectional dominion," the paper announced.
~Charleston Mercury, 11 Oct. 1860.
November 4, 1860 An editorial in the edition of the Charleston Mercury said of the tariff crisis: "The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism." Some Northern newspapers even condoned secession should the Southern States adopt that course of action. In the November 21, 1860 edition of the Cincinnati Daily Press, an editorial said of secession: "We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute."
~When Outgoing President James Buchanan signed the 37%+ to 48% Morrill Tariff into law, with no C.S. Or seceded states able to vote, and with the southern states already contributing 87+% of the total U.S. federal budget.
~Lincoln left the "Whig" party for the new "Republican" party, with the promise of party support for if he would enforce the Morrill Tariff by force, Delegate from Virginia, John Baldwin, tried to persuade Lincoln to let Gulf states peacefully secede, and eventually they would reconcile and reunite. President Lincoln responded:
"but what would become of my Tariff?"

So why add an irrevocable slavery article if tariffs were the motivator? And why did the Deep South states lie about their motivation in their Articles of Secession? Something doesn't add up in the historical record.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

How do you explain that one of the few differences between the CS and US constitution was the article that made slavery a perpetual institution for which congress had no ability to revoke it?

That alone says slavery drove the breakup.

---

Slavery at the time remained key to the economic survival of the South, particularly as an independent "nation".

Congress didn't have the power in the US Constitution to end it, hence the 13th Amendment.

What am I missing?

---

It also didn't allow any state within the CSA to end slavery within its own borders.

States rights, territorial expansions and rules thereof, and really getting overall tired of the Northern elitist treating the South as its prison *****. (They used the term Northern aggression not prison ***** as the latter was not yet widely understood terminology at the time).

Now it's the coastal elitist that try and set the terms for middle America and if they keep it up we can war again. It won't go the way it went last time though. There are no real men left on the left.

Given the economic inter reliance of the confederate states that seems like a wise inclusion.

flown-the-coop said:

---

States rights, territorial expansions and rules thereof, and really getting overall tired of the Northern elitist treating the South as its prison *****. (They used the term Northern aggression not prison ***** as the latter was not yet widely understood terminology at the time).

Now it's the coastal elitist that try and set the terms for middle America and if they keep it up we can war again. It won't go the way it went last time though. There are no real men left on the left.

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Given the economic inter reliance of the confederate states that seems like a wise inclusion.

---

Not really, especially if they were tired of elites running roughshod over the rights of the states. If Texas wanted to end slavery, why should Montgomery(at the time) be able to tell them what they can or can't do with slavery within their own borders?

Again, you are making claims and providing no evidence.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Given the economic inter reliance of the confederate states that seems like a wise inclusion.

---

Not really, especially if they were tired of elites running roughshod over the rights of the states. If Texas wanted to end slavery, why should Montgomery(at the time) be able to tell them what they can or can't do with slavery within their own borders?

Again, you are making claims and providing no evidence.

---

So you support sanctuary cities and states? No thanks.

Hard to reconcile you think the south was bad for having solidarity but the union was good for its solidarity?

Makes zero cents, and even lesser sense.

It was deeper than that Montgomery/Richmond couldn't end it either. Perpetual right to the people who owned slaves.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Given the economic inter reliance of the confederate states that seems like a wise inclusion.

---

Not really, especially if they were tired of elites running roughshod over the rights of the states. If Texas wanted to end slavery, why should Montgomery(at the time) be able to tell them what they can or can't do with slavery within their own borders?

Again, you are making claims and providing no evidence.

---

So you support sanctuary cities and states? No thanks.

Hard to reconcile you think the south was bad for having solidarity but the union was good for its solidarity?

Makes zero cents, and even lesser sense.

---

Again, you just create arguments in your head. The Union allowed for slave and non-slave states to exist.

Because they were dumb**** ****** traitors.

BQ78 said:

---

So why add an irrevocable slavery article if tariffs were the motivator? And why did the Deep South states lie about their motivation in their Articles of Secession? Something doesn't add up in the historical record.

---

First of all, try to get over your bias and read the entirety of the individual state's ordinances of Secession instead of just cherry picking that common denominator. This is something you should have learned to do in high school if you lived in Texas. Here is an excerpt from the Texas Declaration of Causes, February 2, 1861: "The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas." And here is a book that can help you learn about objectivity.

Awesome cherry pick, that was actually a decent gripe by Texas, now tell me what the rest of it says and how many more words they used for that issue. Is that why South Carolina left, Indian depredations? Did any other states say that was their reason?

Also more meat is contained in the Declaration s ofSecession if a state issued it (Texas did not).

Wait until you read how well the CSA protected the people of Texas against the American Indians.

If it's agreed that it was all about slavery and not about black people and racism, does that resolve things?

I can live with that because slavery is an economic model. One as old as man himself. So there would be nothing particularly off putting about the southerners stance, since the the southern portion of the original colonies and then all of the Caribbean, most of South America and then Northern Africa engaged in much slavery back then.

And we know it was economic and not based on race because white people have been slaves too.

I mean the word itself refers to Slavic peoples.

So do you Civil War historians want to discuss slavery or racism, cause they is not the same thing.

To add: my take is that people who trot out cherry picked quotes and then die on the sword saying the Civil War was about slavery and slavery alone despite all the other evidence that it was about economics, power and control are really, really trying to tell you they believe the Civil War was about racism. That is what they have been taught and believe. It was racist whites wanting to keep their black free help whilst the enlightened north was there to free the poor black man from his white ignorant overlords.

Else, just agree it was about the economies of the South and the northern elites wanting to exert total control as if they themselves were the ruling class.

It wasn't economically necessary to deliberately separate slave families though. Or to force the North to return fugitive slaves.

They were property. That's sort of the concept.

flown-the-coop said:

---

If it's agreed that it was all about slavery and not about black people and racism, does that resolve things?

I can live with that because slavery is an economic model. One as old as man himself. So there would be nothing particularly off putting about the southerners stance, since the the southern portion of the original colonies and then all of the Caribbean, most of South America and then Northern Africa engaged in much slavery back then.

And we know it was economic and not based on race because white people have been slaves too.

I mean the word itself refers to Slavic peoples.

So do you Civil War historians want to discuss slavery or racism, cause they is not the same thing.

To add: my take is that people who trot out cherry picked quotes and then die on the sword saying the Civil War was about slavery and slavery alone despite all the other evidence that it was about economics, power and control are really, really trying to tell you they believe the Civil War was about racism. That is what they have been taught and believe. It was racist whites wanting to keep their black free help whilst the enlightened north was there to free the poor black man from his white ignorant overlords.

Else, just agree it was about the economies of the South and the northern elites wanting to exert total control as if they themselves were the ruling class.

---

It's agreed that the secession of the southern states and formation of the CSA was mostly about slavery. There is little to no doubt of this and the evidence is clear, no matter how many times you say it was cherry picked.

The Civil War was more complicated, primarily on the Union side. Many were fighting for the preservation of the Union, many were fighting because they were forced to or had few options, and some were fighting to end slavery. Nobody has claimed that the Civil War was about slavery but you know that and again, don't stick to the posts on here.

Slavery has been the norm for human existence but slavery in America was racially motivated. The justification for slavery had moved from a "necessary evil" to arguing it was a "positive good". It was morally justified and necessary for everyone involved.

And yes, there was a significant economic component and nobody has disagreed with that but it was not just an economic issue, as proven by the "cherry-picked" quotes.

flown-the-coop said:

---

txwxman said:

---

Why do Aggies insist on occasionally embarrassing themselves and the university by posting pro-South revisionist drivel?

---

Its done because the Northern narrative was false to start with and history is on the side of the truth, not what some liberal arts cum history teacher or even better PE coach cum history teacher told you was history.

---

The victors write the history. The losers whine about it for generations. If the south wanted a better place in the history books their great great grandfathers should have fought harder.

Southerners crying about their precious Confederacy remind me of native Americans whimpering about "stolen land". The same thing said to them needs to be said to southerners crying about the CSAs place in history… "get over it, you lost".

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Because the South saw Republican opposition to the expansion of slavery as a long-term threat.

In 1860, there were 18 free states and 15 slave states. The free states had a majority, but not the 2/3 majority needed to approve a constitutional amendment for ratification.

But look at the West. At the time, it consisted of merely three states (Texas, California, and Oregon), 5 organized territories, and 2 unorganized territories. It was clear that the national population was increasing, more people were settling in the west, and so all of that land would eventually become states. The only question was how many, and when.

If no new slave states were omitted after 1860, but 15 new free states were admitted, then the balance of power changes to 33 free states versus 15 slave states. That's would be a 2/3 Senate majority for free states. And only 3 slave states (probably out of the border states of MO, KY, MD, and DE) would need to flip sides in order to enact a constitutional ban on slavery.

The South saw the writing on the wall. Unless they could turn a few of the Western territories into slave states, they would ultimately become hopelessly outnumbered in the Senate (as they already were in the House). Maybe not in the 1860's, but definitely by the 1910's.

---

...but it wasn't about slavery, was it? I mean, hundreds of blue stars can't be wrong.

What would have happened if the Government offered to buy all the slaves and then free them?

Could a law have been passed that everyone born in the US was a free citizen no matter the race?