Virginia apologizes for slavery

[shanek]

I can not even believe how dishonest this is.

Lincoln refused to endorse any of the compromises purposed that would have allowed slavery to expand into the territories. (i.e. The Crittendon Compromise, etc.)

This is just "lost cause" nonsense you are spreading.

What about his support for the proposed 13th Amendment, which would have prevented any law or any amendment to the Constitution interfering with the existence of slavery in any state?

 

[shanek]

It is interesting that a few years before the war certain states like Mass. were passing "personal liberty" laws to give captured slaves local trials and claiming that "states' rights" allowed them to do it.

That's exactly what prompted the FSA of 1850--to prevent states from doing exactly that.

After it passed, the New England states and some others got together to discuss the possibility of secession from the Union, so that they wouldn't be forced to turn them back over. They decided not to, of course, but guess what--no one at the time said they weren't allowed to!

 

[shanek]

By its very nature its promotes and protects domestically produced items. It doesn't matter if there is one flat rate or not.

Uh, no. A protectionist tariff is a tariff on a particular good, above and beyond the normal tariff level. These tariffs were designed to force the south to pay for northern goods since it was more expensive to get them overseas--but the north didn't have to pay the same level of tariff on imported goods that they needed. That's what "protectionist" means.

Four southern states wrote Declarations of Causes of Secession and, as posted previously, the idea that they were seceding mainly because of Tarifs is simply not reflected in those documents,

I never said the southern state seceded because of tariffs, although they were mentioned in the context of other things. I said that the tariffs were the main reason for Lincoln starting the war.

 

[shanek]

Seems like alot of people dont want to see one cause they dont think slavery was wrong.

It seems like the history of slavery has morphed into blacks just hanging out in a summer camp having an OK time.

Tmy, either post where people have stated or implied this, or stop lying.

 

[bigred]

either post where people have stated or implied this, or stop lying.

Please don't feed the trolls. Didn't you see the sign?

 

[Kaylee]

Uh, no. A protectionist tariff is a tariff on a particular good, above and beyond the normal tariff level. These tariffs were designed to force the south to pay for northern goods since it was more expensive to get them overseas--but the north didn't have to pay the same level of tariff on imported goods that they needed. That's what "protectionist" means.

I had already provided a reference for the tariff definition in my post.

Here's more:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A++tariff

and a cut and paste from above:

A duty(or tax) applied to goods transported from one country to another, or on imported products. Tariffs raise the prices of imported goods, thus making them less competitive within the market of the importing country.
www.afsc.org/trade-matters/learn-about/glossary.htm

If you can find a reference that redefines tariff the same way that you do, please provide the link.

Also, you have not addressed the issues already brought up -- including that the South intended to start using tariffs for the same reason the North did: to build an industrial sector to make it less reliant on foreign countries, an important consideration especially in the advent of any future wars. (Discussed in post #96.)

I never said the southern state seceded because of tariffs, although they were mentioned in the context of other things.

Hmmm, in post #61:

I've personally always found it incomprehensible how the Southern elite managed to get the rest of their countrymen to support them in a war that was against their interests.

Because it was about a whole lot more than just slavery. The protectionists tariffs hurt the poor farmers and families a lot more than it did the elites. In fact, the biggest reason for the increasing rift between the northern and southern states throughout the first half of the 19th century was the tariff issue.

Then there was the issue of creeping Federal power, which the northern states liked because they were the majority in both houses and the southern states didn't like for the same reason.

But even then, they ultimately didn't cry war, just secession. If Lincoln hadn't sent in the troops, and had surrendered Fort Sumter like he did the rest of the military bases, no one would have been attacked. The South was on the defensive.

I understood this post to mean that you were asserting that tariffs were a major reason for the South's secession. Of course, for all the reasons I had mentioned throughout this thread, I don't agree.

I said that the tariffs were the main reason for Lincoln starting the war.

Any links to Lincoln's speeches where he states that?

In his first speech to the nation, after 7 of the Southern states had already seceded from the Union, Lincoln spends most of his time talking about why that was not legal and why as chief executive of the Union, he would carry out his "oath" to "preserve protect and defend it." As we had already discussed, he did not mention tariffs in that speech. If it was an important issue to Lincoln, wouldn't he have stated that in his first address to the nation as president? Also, the cost of war was surely far more than any amount brought in by tariffs, so that just doesn't seem like a logical reason to go to war.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

 

[Kaylee]

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

Gee, do you think they might be referring to the tariffs there?


Don't get me wrong; Texas's Secession document is a disgusting piece of white supremacist bigotry; but these clauses do actually show additional and legitimate grievances beyond that.

Perhaps. However, I thought that they were refering to Congress banning slavery in the Northern Territories.

My impression is that the only reason they seceded was over slavery and that some of the states briefly mentioned a few other issues to make their position look more substantial.

I had already listed the reasons why I believe this and feel no need to retype them. I think I'm done with this thread unless something new pops up.

Have a good weekend everyone!

 

[shanek]

If you can find a reference that redefines tariff the same way that you do, please provide the link.

Dictionary.com:

tar·iff

/ˈtær

ɪf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tar-if] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.an official list or table showing the duties or customs imposed by a government on imports or exports.
2.the schedule or system of duties so imposed.
3.any duty or rate of duty in such a list or schedule.
4.any table of charges, as of a railroad, bus line, etc.
5.bill; cost; charge.
–verb (used with object)
6.to subject to a tariff.
7.to put a valuation on according to a tariff.

Also, you have not addressed the issues already brought up -- including that the South intended to start using tariffs for the same reason the North did: to build an industrial sector to make it less reliant on foreign countries, an important consideration especially in the advent of any future wars. (Discussed in post #96.)

Again, there's a difference between having flat tariffs to raise revenue and having protectionist tariffs to favor the products of one state over another. Favoring local goods over foreign is not the same as favoring one state's domestic goods over another. And I really don't see why I need to explain that.

Any links to Lincoln's speeches where he states that?

Check out his Pittsburgh speech on 15 Feb 1861. His inaugural address, which I mentioned, where he stated, "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against or among the people anywhere." And again, he fortified Fort Sumter, which was there to collect the tariffs for the goods going into the Port of Charleston, and two weeks after the battle there issued a blockade on the port--and the only reason he gave for that blockade was tariff collection.

I don't see how any person with any modicum of historical knowledge can deny that Lincoln was most certainly for protectionist tariffs; it was a position he held for almost all of his political career.

 

[shanek]

My impression is that the only reason they seceded was over slavery and that some of the states briefly mentioned a few other issues to make their position look more substantial.

More likely, they mention slavery so much because, as usual, the elites were way overrepresented (read those documents again; they're absolutely dripping with elitism of all kinds), but they still knew they needed the support of everyone else, so the other issues were included as well.

Of course, the last several states to secede don't mention slavery at all and they only came to secede because of northern aggression. It's kind of like how Concord and Lexington ignited the flame of rebellion in the other colonies at the start of the Revolutionary War.

 

[shanek]

So, here's another question: if the southern states have to apologize for slavery, do the northern states have to apologize for martial law and subverting the democratic process by deposing duly-elected Democrats in southern states years after the Civil War was over and placing Republicans in power by martial law?

 

[Darth Rotor]

So, here's another question: if the southern states have to apologize for slavery, do the northern states have to apologize for martial law and subverting the democratic process by deposing duly-elected Democrats in southern states years after the Civil War was over and placing Republicans in power by martial law?

No, but they do have to apologize for failure to speak properly, and for not serving grits in those Yankee diners.

Hashbrowns? That's not a proper side for ham and eggs, grits is the correct side dish!

Philistines, I tell you, they're all Philistines!

DR

 

[Mike B.]

Here is a quick one.

This is from the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol. 4.

It is part of his reply to a VA commitee in their secession convention before the war began:

"Whatever else I may do for the purpose, I shall not attempt to collect the duties, and imposts, by any armed invasion of any part of the country---not meaning by this, however, that I may not land a force, deemed necessary, to relieve a fort upon a border of the country. From the fact, that I have quoted a part of the inaugeral address, it must not be infered that I repudiate any other part, the whole of which I re-affirm, except so far as what I now say of the mails, may be regarded as a modification."


"shall not attempt to collect the duties, and imposts..."

Wow so much for that theory

 

[Lonewulf]

This was my History 1301 instructor's opinion: "To claim that it was just over slavery, or just over states' rights, simplifies things." (Paraphrasing). The North and South had been different ever since the Virginia and Plymouth colonies set foot on the soil. Things had pent up and built up for a long period of time between the two. There were different values, and different economical goals (In the north, industry was the way to go; in the south, plantations).

Slavery was a big issue, yes. And slavery was a major influence on the civil war. However, it was not the only influence.

 

[shanek]

No, but they do have to apologize for failure to speak properly, and for not serving grits in those Yankee diners.

Yes, and for not sweetening their iced tea, too! Philistines indeed!

 

[shanek]

Here is a quick one.

This is from the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol. 4.

It is part of his reply to a VA commitee in their secession convention before the war began:

"Whatever else I may do for the purpose, I shall not attempt to collect the duties, and imposts, by any armed invasion of any part of the country---not meaning by this, however, that I may not land a force, deemed necessary, to relieve a fort upon a border of the country. From the fact, that I have quoted a part of the inaugeral address, it must not be infered that I repudiate any other part, the whole of which I re-affirm, except so far as what I now say of the mails, may be regarded as a modification."


"shall not attempt to collect the duties, and imposts..."

Wow so much for that theory

Hmmm...so he said one thing in PA, which was big on the tariffs, and something completely different in VA, which wasn't. A politician? Altering his message based on the audience??? That's never happened before!!!

 

[Checkmite]

Slavery was a big issue, yes. And slavery was a major influence on the civil war. However, it was not the only influence.

I tend to think that saying slavery was just a "big" issue is also simplifying. It was by far the biggest issue. Two or three states mention tariffs (something that's obviously debatable here); yet all except for one (maybe two) mention or allude to slavery in their documents of secession. It was the overwhelming common denominator. I don't think that can really be questioned.

 

[shanek]

Actually, as I have shown, several states didn't cite slavery at all as a reason, particularly the states that seceded after Fort Sumter.

 

[Gurdur]

Actually, as I have shown, several states didn't cite slavery at all as a reason, particularly the states that seceded after Fort Sumter.

Would you deny that slavery was the decisive factor in their decision to secede? Whether they openly cited it as a reason or not?

 

[shanek]

For the later states? Yes! They had already debated on seceding on the basis of slavery and decided that the slavery wasn't enough of an issue to secede on.

Notice that the first states to secede--SC, GA, etc.--were the ones with most of the big plantations. It wasn't so much of an issue in VA, NC, TN, etc., where there weren't so many plantations. There were other slave states, such as KY and MD, who decided not to secede at all. Not that they didn't debate it. Actually, MD might have seceded were it not for Lincoln's unconstitutional actions. Here's some info about it:

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/maryland.htm

The men who tried to lead Maryland into secession were not a solid set of die-hard slavery advocates. Slavery in Maryland was a moribund institution. A meeting in favor of secession, held April 18 in Baltimore's Taylor Hall, was chaired by T. Parkin Scott, who "was a strong sympathizer with the South," Brown wrote, "and had the courage of his convictions, but he had been also an opponent of slavery, and I have it from his own lips that years before the war, on a Fourth of July, he had persuaded his mother to liberate all her slaves, although she depended largely on their services for her support. And yet he lived and died a poor man." The federal government felt sufficiently unsure of Maryland's allegiance that it issued an April 27, 1861, order for the arrest and detention of anyone between Washington and Philadelphia who was suspected of subversive deeds or utterances, with its notorious suspension of habeas corpus. This led to the Merryman case, and the Supreme Court's failure to get the authorities to enforce its rejection of the administration's move.

Hicks then called the legislature in the northwest part of the state, where unionism was strongest. Though the legislature did not vote to secede, it approved a resolution calling for "the peaceful and immediate recognition of the independence of the Confederate States," which Maryland "hereby gives her cordial consent thereunto, as a member of the Union." The legislature also denounced "the present military occupation of Maryland" as a "flagrant violation of the Constitution."

In the fall, Lincoln arrested allegedly disloyal members of the state legislature (Sept. 12-17, 1861), to prevent them from attending a meeting that could have voted on secession. But Maryland was not really safely in the Union until the November state elections. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested known Democrats and any disunionist who attempted to vote. The special three-day furlough granted to Maryland troops in the Union army, so they could go home and vote, further rigged the election. The result, not surprisingly, was a solidly pro-Union legislature. The next year, state judges instructed grand jurors to inquire into the elections, but the judges were arrested and thrown into military prisons.

 

[Lonewulf]

Notice that the first states to secede--SC, GA, etc.--were the ones with most of the big plantations. It wasn't so much of an issue in VA, NC, TN, etc., where there weren't so many plantations.

Wait, what?

The states with the biggest plantations were those that seceded first?

Doesn't this go against your claim, not for it?