Built by slaves to honor slave owners
Darryl
Printable View
Built by slaves to honor slave owners
Darryl
No offense, because many of my family would agree with you. Perhaps if the statues some whites claim to hold dear were considered architectural wonders of this world there would be argument there imho..
http://atlantablackstar.com/wp-conte...ping-yards.jpg
http://www.arch-usa.com/wp-content/u...y-726x1024.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3163/...ce962ba1_o.jpg
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Well Mt Rushmore should definitely be blown up
All this does is pave the way for whatever division down the road and it's figures who are memorialized to be torn down. I understand the discomfort that confederate monuments may cause, but who's to say a statue of MLK may evoke that same emotion in 100 years? Will the demographics of America change enough to bring that kind of feeling? And more importantly would the feeling that's brought about that change be stronger than what brought the change about in the first place?
Any history, however checkered it may be should remain just so prior generations will understand the struggle that occurred to get us here.
So b/c slavery was awful, which everyone agrees on, we should remove any vestige of anything connected to it in any way? Is that the argument?
we already have calls not to just remove Civil War statues, but those of Jefferson and Washington, b/c they owned slaves. Do we burn down Monticello? What do we do with the Declaration of Independence, written by an obviously evil man and signed by others who are evil?
It's convenient to take that step that civil war statues, or Jefferson statues, etc. are somehow one to one directly connected with condoning slavery. But it's a strawman argument.
The Civil war happened. It happened in fact for many reasons, and slavery was just one aspect of it, and not a reason that most who fought for the South did so. Denying it happened, erasing history, is the surest way to repeat it.
I don't hold those statues "dear", but I do hold history dear. All of history, so we can learn from it. Nothing good has ever come from burying it. INstead of taking down a statue, put up one of MLK next to it, so we can show the evolution of our nation and broaden our understanding. I'm all for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
How is what we are doing so different from what ISIS is doing in Syria, destroying "pagan" temples and idols b/c they offend their faith?
FWIW I should add that Tucker Carlson is right. This isn't about statues. This is about being able to discredit the Founders, so their works can then be discredited.
IF Jefferson and Washington can be torn down, etc. then they can start to discredit and tear down the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, b/c pesky things like free speech and different ideas have become thought crime and it's time to stamp those things out, and the Constitution and our belief in the principles of the FOunders are in the way.
:sHa_clap2:Quote:
How is what we are doing so different from what ISIS is doing in Syria, destroying "pagan" temples and idols b/c they offend their faith?
Slavery was evil and the confederacy championed slavery. And they lost decidedly.
So although I dont personally view the monuments as anything other than a sad testament to a dark past, If another citizen has cause to be greatly offended, I side with that citizen.
Rather than discuss if a major segment of our society is right in wanting these things removed, we should discuss what they really mean to those who defend keeping them with their sweat and blood. I do not feel one bit patriotic seeing a confederate statue.
Slavery, which was a major theme of the war is an extremely embarrassing and cruel part of the history of the United States. And those on either side who championed it will have to answer for it. If it offends a segment of America, its wrong to argue their God given right to demand they be taken away, plain and simple.
The historical significance is nothing to be proud of, as they sought to kill a great American hero in President Lincoln and keep slaves a part of our American way of life. They failed and as individuals should not be applauded imho.
"United we stand, divided we fall". That's not talking about the races. And I for one will not stand with the nazis, the KKK, or the confederacy against true Americans. The discussion is fine and needed...but that's where I end up from my perspective. Others see it differently I understand
Id only add that, if our country fell because of one side protecting confederate statues, how sill would the history we love, view us?
The Union went to war with the Confederacy over taxes, not slavery per se. Many articles state this, but here is one.
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/...oric_is_i.html
The statue removed from the Maryland State House is of a man who said this with regard to Blacks..
Blacks are “regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights that the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit.”..Roger B Taney
How can I side against a Black person in the face of this? To debate each case on its own merit is something I could fathom. But not defending such as this...It just isn't Christian.
I agree with you. It isn't Christian. I'd also add the caveat that deleting Exodus, Leviticus etc from the Bible to blank out bad portions of human action and history and is similar to what is going on in this country currently. You need to know where you've been, to know where (and how to) move forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
Fair enough. The Declaration of Independence was written by a slave holder? what do we do with it? With his monument?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
I would like some proof though that most of the outrage is coming from black people. As Charles Barkley said most black people haven't spent a day in their lives worried about these things. They're too busy worrying about making a living, keeping their kids away from drugs, etc. Numerically I bet we'd find this is predominantly guilty white folks, mostly Yankees who think you and I are both racists.
Of course it isn't Christian, I agree. We did a lot of non-Christian things to win WWII too. Do we think those boys on Iwo Jima were Christian to the Japanese, and vise versa? Of course not. Do we take down the memorial?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
Closer to home, many think Rupp was a racist (despite there being very little evidence and a lot of it he wasn't). But I'm sure as a man of his time he probably didn't like the idea of a black man marrying his potential daughter as it were, so do we take his name off everything, purge the media guide? Do we really take a stand and forfeit his wins and titles?
If we cannot see that almost every figure in history has both good and bad on his resume, and that none of them, no matter how progressive for their era, are going to measure up to modern standards, then we're going to be taking down ALL the statues and monuments, and ripping up all the history books.
what about MLK? he wrote in an Ebony advice column to a young boy worried about being gay that the boy's feelings for other boys was a problem to be "solved." While very respectful and supportive for his time, his comments on the subject would never pass muster in our era. Do we take down his statues b/c he wasn't pro LGBTXYZ enough at the time?
I'll go to my grave unable to understand why people can't put themselves in different context in order to judge events, decisions, and people. It's so easy to condemn things from our context, but you can only judge people based on their context at the time, and people just can't seem to do it.
It became much more of an issue than it was when Nazis and the KKK felt empowered enough to descend on the protests, peaceful protests with legitimate concerns, and terrorize people.
One can argue why they feel empowered, and I wont go there. Yet that is the major concern fair or not, that the defense by redirecting blame.
Regardless, in the face of the enemy of democracy and freedom, changing the focus to the folks protesting just is not prudent imo. I understand it is a current conservative talking point but in my view is that it's at least in part to protect and defend the actions of POTUS.
People can peacefully protest the removal and initiate dialogue on the matter, but don't placate the terrorists by blaming those with legitimate concerns for violence.. That's what this is all about.
No offense to anyone here or the OP, it's just my general opinion about what's happening nationally .
I wont be swayed, so Ill leave it here. I do enjoy the chance to express my personal views on the matter.
I am not arguing that all the statues should come down. only the ones that justly offend the former oppressed. I support their effort to right any perceived injustice.
And a case against it hasn't been made imo
So you're OK taking down the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument (or at least renaming that one)? Blowing the face off Mount Rushmore? All 3 of those have come up this week.
Seems silly to me and I don't think that would ever happen. No doubt there are some out there who get off going to extremes whenever the media will listen.
Some should go, and some should not. No place for confederate statues at federal or state offices for the most part.
National Monuments are a different story and Ive not read or seen any story related to them on any news outlets I follow.
And justice taneyoversaw a horribly wrong decision. It is awful. But the question is where do,we stop. Nazis fought against he world. Confederates fought for thei states which were based on A slave economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
Taney applied the law however immoral it was and stayed true to his country. He was a racist jerk by our standards but he was not a rebel.
Taney is the next step to attacking the founding fathers. Dangerous direction.
I'll bet you $1,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
This isn't about Confederate statues. You cited Justice Taney, who had nothing to do with the Civil War personally, simply b/c we now disagree with a single court decision he made.
it's naive IMO to think there's any distinction in the minds of those on the left between supporting the South in the Civil war and having been a slave holder or otherwise doing something seen as sympathetic to or supportive of slavery, and you just proved the point with your own post about Taney.
Rep. Rangel has already proposed de-funding the Jefferson Memorial. The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and one of the 5 or so key men in establishing the United States.
FWIW, you also mis-quoted Taney. He wasn't expressing his personal opinions, he was citing the fact that the Constitution did make them worth 3/5ths of a Citizen, and he was interpreting the document as he saw it. Isn't that the job of a Justice of the Supreme Court? It was the proper role of Congress and the States to then say we want something different, and make changes, which was done.
There's no doubt Taney was racist, but by modern standards so was Lincoln, and in fact we've seen at least two of his monuments defaced in the last week as well. Lincoln said that while black people had a right to try to better themselves, he did not in any way support them being politically or socially integrated with or equal to white people. He was not an abolitionist.
So buckle up, b/c if you think this ends here you're sorely wrong. Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln are all on the chopping block. All the foundations of our nation. Men who were more than extraordinary, men who established the very freedom that now allows this insane nonsense.
This is how radical leftist revolutions begin, by destroying the past and rejecting it, b/c then you can rewrite everything. This is about getting rid of the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
Many will think that's alarmist, but it's true. Among leftist justices we already see comments that the Constitution is outdated, that it has basically outlived its usefulness and isn't applicable to the modern world. Breyer, Gingsburg among others have made such comments, and they sit on the damned bench.
The goal is to discredit all of the glorified history of America, b/c they don't see America as good, and to undo those ties to our Founders and our mission as a nation, so we can sweep away things like free speech and individual liberty.
I'ts not as crazy as it sounds. In Europe people are already being convicted of "hate speech", where it's an actual crime to say things that offend others. There are numerous calls for that from the Left in this country, and we see it happening in event after event on college campuses.
They will tear down anything they deem "offensive", and it won't be long till the statues of slave owners turn to the documents written by slave owners.
Fundamentally these leftists (not all liberals but Leftists), think they are smarter than anyone else. Smarter than conservatives for sure, but also smarter than the Founders, and they don't think twice about history or anything else. It's about social justice and their causes, and anything they have to do for them is acceptable.
There were non racist slave owners. Jefferson was one. And if Lincoln had taken the moral stance of Taney and others, we certainly would not have a Lincoln Memorial.
The cause he championed won the war, not his might. It was ordained of God for the south to fall. Slavery was not some romantic Shirley temple movie...it was our version of the Holocaust.
Just as evil imho, period And acknowledged as a such by Jefferson himself as proven below
"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
..Abraham Lincoln
“no body wishes more than I” to see the end of prejudice and slavery
an “abominable crime,”
..Thomas Jefferson
Id like to add that imo, there was a definite middle ground at one time regarding slavery and White nationalism.
It no longer exists.
Id suggest our leader(s) open a political dialogue with regard to every monument, obelisk, or statue in question.
And any, outside of national monuments, that cant be agreed upon should be placed in a museum somewhere.
And Id exclude every KKK member or white supremacist from any input, rally, or demonstration.
Its time to stop them and show Muslims worldwide that we are consistent with regard to hate groups. Same for all such groups that seek to divide along those lines
So do we ban the BLM and Nation of Islam as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
Good to know I was right I guess, but hoping I was wrong. You are as fair minded as anyone I know, and you support the elimination of free speech, free expression and freedom of association of groups you find offensive. If that's the case, the Constitution really is living on borrowed time.
Not trying to put words in your mouth, but if you want to ban the KKK/Nazis and other hate groups from demonstrating, having permits to march, etc. that sure sounds like what you're saying. Now we get to decide based on the content of your beliefs if you have a right to express yourself. I can't imagine anything more dangerous.
We will all accept everyone, under pain of death. So much for individual liberty, even if we don't like what people do with it.
I see many Muslims as hate groups, certainly as it pertains to Israel. Go to a mosque sometime and listen to their rhetoric concerning the Jews, or the other "infidels". Can we ban them as well, or is that me just being an Islamaphobe?
You misunderstand Doc. We can only hate the hate groups on the prescribed lists, created by this unidentified group that decides Muslim imams preaching the destruction of Israel and institution of Sharia law are to be tolerated and respected, but a white minister preaching the same thing gets run out on a rail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
Seriously, get with the program. :)
That's what that poll reflects, which is why I posted on this topic at all. A lot of Americans see the obvious hypocrisy and double standards of what constitutes "hate" and "fascism" in the country today. None of them support the KKK or Nazis, but they also see the murder of cops as some kind of social protest for what it is too. The real fascism today comes from the BLM and these social justice warriors operating as internet age thought police, b/c the Nazi version is never going to catch on but the Leftist version is making real progress.
If you are accusing me this is way, way off base from my point. I am not accusing anyone as an Islamaphobe.
I would ask you, do you consider all Muslims part of a radical hate group?
Anyone who is violent in their approach is a criminal. And so relinquished their rights to liberty imo. I do not support violence, but kind and peaceful discussion...and you ARE trying to put words in my mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Just changing the subject to suit your argument again.
Cool....but not going to work. :trink39:
Ive said all I can say, and feel real, real comfortable with my position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
I'm accusing you of nothing. Apologies if it sounds as such.
My point is I oppose anything "hate" related. Who decides what is or isn't a hate group? It pertains to crimes as well. Why is killing somebody in and of itself not terrible but make it a HATE KILLING and suddenly its worse. IMO any murder is a hate crime and see no reason to add "hate" in certain circumstances.
Many Muslims do in fact preach the destruction of Israel. That is a fact yet if anybody dares to call them out for that suddenly you are an Islamaphobe. Are all Arabs preaching the destruction of Israel? Nope but lets not ignore that a LARGE faction is, and comparatively speaking, its FAR FAR greater than the number of members in the KKK or other White Supremacy groups. However when these white supremacist legally gather suddenly its an issue (don't take that as I support the KKK or Nazi's in any form because I despise these groups) yet anybody who has an issue with Radical Islamic Terrorist is somehow a bigoted racist that fears all Arabs.
Edit: note my original post said MANY, not all. There is a distinct difference and I want to be clear of that difference.
I'm absolutely not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to figure out your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
You said you'd ban Nazis from events, demonstrations, etc. You said it, not me. I am trying to figure out how we now determine who gets to have a demonstration and who doesn't and what that means for the 1st Amendment.
Now you are saying those who are violent. OK, but all of these demonstrations start without violence, and I'm betting a majority of even the KKK and Nazi guys at this thing didn't actually engage in a fight (just based on the numbers). So it's OK for them to get a permit and have a demonstration as long as they aren't violent?
Many in the BLM have called for killing cops, even chanted at some of their demonstrations. Are they now banned?
I'm not putting anything in your mouth. I'm asking questions, trying to figure out exactly what policy you are proposing.
Violence is already illegal. None of these things get permits with "going to start a rumble" on the application. Traditionally in America you're innocent until guilty, so you are allowed to come and say what you want, even "hate speech", and if it turns out violent people get arrested. It seems you're proposing we decide a priori that groups X and Y are prone to violence so we just ban them from assembling.
If that's not the case tell me, I really am asking.
Technically the south fired the first shot at fort sumpter. The south left the union becausetheir right they feared losing was the peculiar institution of slaveryQuote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
I disagree somewhat on the image of the South starting the war, and while I agree slavery was obviously central to the issue IMO it was part of a much bigger and longer term problem we never could tackle politically.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
First on Fort Sumter, the fort wasn't finished at the time South Carolina seceded from the Union. It was occupied by federal Major Anderson, and there was a standoff with the state militia. It was when Lincoln announced he was going to resupply the fort that the first shots were fired.
In fact this started before Lincoln was President, with Anderson moving his small garrison from an old fort to Fort Sumter. Many federal military encampments were seized by Southern states, and I note here that it was the Union government that decided to not just leave, forcing the situation.
South Carolina forced the retreat of one supply ship, Lincoln as a new President announced he would resupply and thus hold the fort. The fort was then taken.
Even then there was no war. It was Lincoln who called for troops to put down the "rebellion". The Republicans, unlike outgoing Democrat Buchanan, saw this as a rebellion and not the states leaving. Buchanan said the union was meant to be perpetual but that there was no authority in the Constitution to call for troops to force a state to stay. LIncoln disagreed and called for troops from the states.
It was the Republican party of the era that decided states can't just up and leave the union. As Southern Congressmen resigned they had the votes to pass a lot of laws the South had blocked, and to make these decisions.
Now, Fort Sumter did galvanize public opinion in the North for war, no doubt, and it was the first shots, but I take issue with the implication that South carolina started the actual war. They did try to drive union forces from Charleston, but by staying clearly the Union wasn't recognizing the autonomy of South Carolina or the right to leave.
Can you tell I like discussing the Civil War? :) Actually the buildup to the war is even more interesting, the deep politics of it all.
Now, where I do agree is that slavery was becoming a seminal issue in the war. It was NOT the only issue, and I take great issue with the idea that those who fought for the south were somehow "fighting for slavery", any more than our men in WWII were fighting for Japanese internment and Jim Crowe laws (both going on at the time of WWII). they were fighting for their home and their right to decide things for themselves, for better or worse.
The rift goes back a long way, and slavery was always part of it, but so were tariffs and other factors. In fact once the South left Congress one of the first things the North passed was a tariff act. The tariff battle goes back to the Age of Jackson in the 1820s, and is a reflection of the increasingly industrial north and the agrarian south. They were simply two entirely different economies.
Slavery was thus a big factor, but really slavery was in part a synonym for agrarian versus industrial. To keep enough votes in Congress to block tariffs and banking acts and currency acts, all of which the South didnt' want and all of which were desired by the North, they needed enough agrarian votes in Congress to hold the line as the nation expanded.
No doubt they didn't want to lose slavery, but it was really the entire economy at risk. Had the North gotten enough votes slavery was going to be decreased but there would also be tariffs, currency bills, centralized banks, etc., all of which were seen as things that would hurt the agrarian economy and help the north.
It was truly a nation divided in so many ways, over slavery no doubt (and rightly so) but also just two completely different set of economic interests.
I'm not defending the defense of slavery. When you read the great Americans from Jefferson to Lincoln you see a consistent theme: they all know it is wrong, but they can't figure out how to move from the economic system of slavery to some other without exactly what happened, vast economic destruction and probably war.
Jefferson knew it was an evil institution, they all did. But ending it all at once would have decimated the economy of the nation, and they simply never found a good way out.
Much like North Korea today, there were no good options yet we clearly face an evil that needs to end. We just don't know how to end it, and neither did they.
The hope of the FOunders was that, with the end of the slave trade built into the Constitution that it would simply wind down, moving over time to a wage based workforce and it would end of its own accord. And in fact by the 1840s that was very much looking to be the case. The thing that changed it all was Eli Whitney's cotton gin. The gin allowed the South to produce vastly more cotton for export, and slavery that had been waning suddenly boomed.
But I have real issue with the "progressive" notion that anyone who fought for the South was doing so to support slavery, or that they are evil for having defended the South.
Are all Germans who fought in WWII evil b/c they fought for the Nazis? Are all Japanese who fought for the Japanese militarists evil b/c of the Rape of Nanking and other numerous Japanese atrocities?
that's what this leftist notion is saying. This or that person who fought for the South is evil purely b/c the South had slaves and slavery is evil, so anyone who didn't ride north and abandon their home and family and community is evil.
now, we did hold certain Germans and Japanese accountable for their specific actions, in war crimes tribunals, but we never looked at every armed German or Japanese soldier as evil once the guns were laid down and the war ended. Quite the contrary we have reached out with respect and made them great allies.
I know men, now gone, who fought in WWII and b/c of their experience were never able to forgive Japan or Germany, and I get that view and don't blame them a bit. But I know many who found friends and respect among their opposites, knowing they were just fighting for their country just like they were for America. It's what you do.
To me this is just like those who spat on our soldiers coming back from Vietnam. Those men didn't go there to kill babies or whatever, they went there b/c their nation called on them and they served. It really was and is that simple for those who fight and die for their nation, both our nation and others.
Likewise many if not most of those who fought for the South did so out of nothing more than loyalty for their homes. They didn't get through the cold, the heat, the dysentery and the war wounds inspired by preserving slavery. 90% of those who fought for the south never owned a slave nor would ever own one. They fought for their state, their home.
yet we will now tear down their statues, shame their names and act as if they were Simon Legree himself.
To me that's the same as calling a Vietnam vet a baby killer b/c Washington decided to bomb the North, or acting like every Japanese or German in WWII is a war criminal.
it's naive, it's dangerous, it's nothing more than a Maoist tactic to destroy history and understanding and tolerance in order to concentrate power.
No doubt some small number are offended by that history. Some of it should offend us all, but we don't turn from that offense, we see it and learn from it, and we dont' demonize those who don't deserve it b/c o that offense.
On a personal note I could never go to Vietnam as a tourist. I didn't serve, but that war destroyed my family. it's more than I could bear to see it. But I will not hate someone just for being Vietnamese. That's how you handle it, not by demonizing people, not by erasing their history, but by learning and moving forward to make things better.
Lincoln's own words at his inauguration proves that assertion incorrect UKHistory. It was about taxes, or the failure of the Southern states to pay them.
Excerpted from Lincoln's
Inaugural address March 4, 1861
"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, 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,"
The reason for SC succession was financial due to the Tariff of 1857 that was instituted as a result of the bank scare that same year. That was supplanted by the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861 on some good were being tariffed at close to 50%.
Once SC succeeded, Lincoln called on bordering states to arms against SC, and the succession was on in earnest at that point.
Tariffs were a huge issue between the north and south. John Calhoun resigned in large part over the issue, and it was a constant issue from the 1820s forward.
And as you mentioned as soon as enough Southern states left the Congress the first thing they did was pass the tariff act.
It was a battle between agrarian and increasingly industrial economies. Tariffs were going to be largely a burden on the south. The northern companies would benefit, and while their people would pay they would have jobs and profit from it. The South was going to pay for finished goods, as you said as much as 50% more, and get nothing back out.
Everyone points to the Emancipation Proclamation as "freeing the slaves" but it's fairly misleading. It was only on states that left, and didn't even include territories of those states that had been captured by the North. The idea was to encourage insurrection in the rebel states, and slaves in states that stayed loyal weren't freed. It wasn't until the 13th Amendment was passed that slaves were really freed.
Lincoln never considered himself an "abolitionist", a term that at the time was fairly radical even after he won the election of 1860. Most felt slavery was wrong morally, but few were of a mind to grant the black man equal rights such as voting and such. In fact Lincoln specifically disavowed the claim he saw blacks as equal, and said specifically they should not be the social or political equal of whites.
the point being that even the most visionary and progressive men of their times, from Jefferson to Lincoln and everyone in between, would fail the modern litmus tests being used. MLK would fail it for Heaven's sake.
Slavery was a part of the Civil War, but more b/c of its economic implications than the moral ones. Tariffs were also a bit part of it, a tax that was going to be primarily on the South. it served as a motivation for some, but largely it was one part of a war over economics and influence within the nation. A big part, but one part.
By the existing laws Lincoln did not have the right to ban slavery, nor the clout to challenge it. Other factors came into play which made it prudent to do so.
But he did not support slavery at all in his life.
He certainly didn't want war, but was trying to walk a thin line in protecting the union. Key to doing so was maintaining the support of key states that also held slaves. He was careful with his words, but abolishing slavery proved to be the over riding factor behind him going to war. Thank God for it.
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."
As president he had no authority to free the slaves but a desire to preserve the union. There were slave holding States also in the Union at that time crucial to that end
It was only his power as Commander and Chief of the military in wartime to act upon his conscience and emancipate slaves.
That's also why at first not all slaves were free. Emancipation was an ongoing progress
I agree, he saw he had no power to free them per the Constitution, and he was right.
But you mentioned Justice Taney, and he was in the same boat. Again, it would take an act of Congress and the states to amend the Constitution to address the issue. If his statue is to come down when he ruled on the current law, will it be long before Lincoln is seen the same way, whether he was right or not?
At the time Abolitionists didn't have any such reservations, and wanted it done, period. that's why Lincoln would fail these modern tests, and eventually he will be turned on as well.
FWIW, it's not clear the Constitution gave him authority to preserve the Union either. Buchanan certainly felt it granted no such authority, and there's nothing in there about it being perpetual or what to do if a state leaves.
California is now talking about referendum to leave. Do we enforce it the same way we did last time if they actually try? The issue was settled at the end of a gun last time.
Slavery was a factor in ending the war, but it was taxes that started it. The North built 30,000 miles of railroad with southern port Tariff money. Very little of those tariffs ended up in southern states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
you'll get no argument from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
There's a great book on slavery and the war, the title alludes me but I have it on a shelf, was used in one of my best classes. It mapped the issue from the 1820s through to the start of the war.
What you see is that no doubt moral objections to slavery grew during that time, both north and south in fact, but in the south that opposition was seen as largely disingenuous b/c there were no reforms for the "wage slavery" of the north, and it always came with tariffs and infrastructure and foreign policy that aided the north, often to the detriment of the south.
Taxes were a huge part of it, and as i said the Missouri Compromise was as much about preserving the balance in the Congress to prevent tariffs and banking laws as much as it was about preserving slavery.
That's why the compromises proposed both prior to Fort Sumter and afterward before the actual battles started all failed. Going back to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 through to the Compromise of 1850 with Henry Clay and all the acts in between (Kansas/Nebraska Act etc.), the battle was in name over slavery, but was really about maintaining balance between agrarian and industrial states in Congress.
There were offers to retain slavery in the existing states, but the South knew that if more non-slave states were admitted they would end up outvoted on not just slavery but tariffs and everything else.
The two parts of the nation were growing in different directions. The North was industrializing, the South was completely entrenched in agriculture, making their money on exports of high dollar crops like cotton, indigo, etc. They wanted low tariffs for purchased goods but also as part of negotiating with other nations to accept their products without tariffs.
The NOrth wanted high tariffs to protect their industries and weren't as focused on exports. If they put a 50% tariff on English finished goods and England responded with a big tariff on cotton it wouldn't hurt them.
I can't deny that slavery as a social issue had grown dramatically from the 1820s through to the war, it did. You have the rise of Abolitionists who had a fair amount of influence, but they were not the mainstream party of the NOrth by far. In fact Lincoln and others had to avoid being painted as such in order to win elections.
But tariffs and banking laws and such were huge factors in this schism. The banking issues get overlooked, but that was a big deal too, going back to the First Bank of the US and the battles between Nicolas Biddle and Andrew Jackson's administration.
Just like modern elections, it's always about the economy and money. The Dems lost this last one b/c they worried about who uses what bathroom, not jobs. Trump won b/c he talked about jobs.
that hasn't changed. The battle was over who gets to keep which part of the pie, jobs, profits, money. It's always over economics, and slavery was a part of it but it was the economic part that drove things far more than the obvious moral bankruptcy of the institution.
One more aside, but if one wanted to look at the role of tariffs specifically with the mindset of South Carolina, they need to look at the Nullification Crisis. South Carolina was all but ready to leave the union in the 1830s over tariffs.
The Tariff of 1828 was called the "Tariff of Abominations" and was particularly hard on South Carolina with the port of Charleston. As much as anything it galvanized the politics of South carolina to be anti-Union.
When Jackson didn't provide any remedy for it South Carolina decided they'd just declare the whole Act null and void in their state. When they passed their nullification resolution after the Tariff of 1832 it included plans for the militia to defend it. Calhoun, who interestingly started out his career pro-tariff, resigned the Vice PResidency over it, returning as a Senator.
a new act was passed in 1833 that was acceptable, but Congress also passed the FOrce Act, giving the President power to enforce the tariff. South Carolina saved face by repealing their nullification due to the lowered tariffs of the new act, but then nullified the Force Act to save political face.
But yes, the first near military battle of the Civil War was actually 30 years earlier and that one was 100% over tariffs.
It shouldn't be a surprise either. Taxes are a very galvanizing thing for Americans. England helped touch off the Revolution with them, and it nearly started a war in South Carolina long before slavery became a major issue.
There was a deep and abiding rift between North and South on nearly every major issue from the 1820s till the war. In the end no amount of political compromise would work, it just forestalled the inevitable for 40 years.