"Ty Seidule On Exposing Robert E. Lee, Lost Cause Myths..." Topic

I see that they made whatever choices they felt were in their best interests but what good choices did the South make during that time?

Not a serious comment and not worthy of any serious attempt at reply.

Au Pas de Charge: I see that they made whatever choices they felt were in their best interests but what good choices did the South make during that time?

Marcus Brutus: Not a serious comment and not worthy of any serious attempt at reply.

Is that right? Odd, considering it was a follow up to this comment:

35thOVI: "There is a gigantic modern fallacy at work here. For of course people only think that they would have acted better in history because they know how history ended up. People in history didn't – and don't – have that luxury. They made good or bad choices in the times and places they were in, given the situations and shibboleths that they found themselves with."

Odder still because after watching Livingston's video, it would appear his central tenet is that the South did nothing wrong, that their every move followed the letter, law and spirit of the Constitution's original intent and that their other motives were naturally what was in their best interests. In fact, what he says is that the Confederacy is the real USA as originally conceived by the Founders and the North's (principally "Lincolnian") view is not only anti American it's basically the path to totalitarian tyranny.

Apparently, if one doesn't see the South's secession as legitimate, then one cannot hold 1776 as legitimate either. Thus, if you approve of one, you must approve of the other. Except at least one thing. In 1776, the Founders knew they were doing something "naughty" and that they were taking a huge gamble and that they might all hang together or separately. Thus, there was at least some belief among the Founders that they were doing something not quite legal.

Although it is true that the Slave States made sure that race and slavery were out of the DOI but then managed to later put it into their articles of secession. Thus they sought to censor is when they thought it would be disadvantageous to them and then mention it when they thought it was to their benefit. In any event, 1776 was not primarily about slavery.

Further, Prof. Livingston states that the North caused the war and invaded the South. Basically, with regards to secession, the South didn't want to do it, the North they made ‘em do it…as the song goes.

Further, he goes on about tariffs and cultural differences and fear of losing states rights but he never really delves into what those cultural differences are. Perhaps they wanted to preserve the great possum hunt from being banned but I suspect the only cultural difference was slavery.

Also, he doesn't address why the slave states seem to all by coincidence have the same goals absent slavery. For instance, there were no Northern states that were uncomfortable with a strong Federal government? It's an interesting series of convenient coincidences.

And many of the things he states are true, the problem is theyre only half true. He never seems to actually finish the sentences. True the South was losing representation in the House because of Northern immigration but he fails to mention that immigrants couldn't compete in the South for jobs because of slavery.

I think it is true that the Southern states believed strongly in states' rights and saw them threatened but really what they were concerned about were state rights to preserve slavery. If there is something else they were afraid was getting muddled with at a national level, I'd wish he had mentioned it. All he says is that the states had the inviolate right to determine their own business and that was that, end of story.

For instance, The South was indeed wealthier and their money was also getting used for the nation at large without their being able to control it. At first glance, this sounds really, really unfair. However, once again, Livingston omits that this wealth disparity existed because of slavery.

Same for taxes, he makes a taxation without representation sort of argument which sounds very counter 1776 and quite un-American…until we realize that these taxes are on goods created principally by…you guessed it… slavery.

Somehow, he also omits that the South was concerned with expansion of slavery into new territories; restarting the slave trade, enforcing the fugitive slave act and the suspicion that slavery itself would eventually be eliminated by the Federal government. It seems to me that there is an awful lot of slavery in the South's mix of concerns with its connection to the Union.

Livingston discusses the South's disgust over several Northern states failure to enforce The Fugitive Slave Act. I think that might've involved slaves but not quite sure. It's one of the stated reasons SC seceded. But as a final irony, what about the rights of those Northern states to not enforce a law? Or is it only Southern states that merit states rights?

Now if he wants to admit that the South just wanted to maintain, reopen and expand slavery and its trade, then why not do so? I mean all those free loading Northerners were happy to take their slave money and spend it like the drunken sailors they were. You'd think the South was proud of their slave economy but Livingston would seem to have us believe that the South's wealth and its slavery were only distantly related.

I note that he also touches on the curious reason that the South didn't go to the Supreme Court to have them opine on both slavery and secession. I suppose they would've thought that 9 well connected lawyers shouldn't have the power over their right to secede and maintain slaves. No, only a state assembly composed of wealthy Southern plantation owners should decide that. I mean it makes sense but really, it's still all about slavery.

I find it interesting that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists Prof. Livingston and his colleagues as some of the original neo confederates:
link

Your conception of the ACW as some great moral crusade to remove the institution of slavery from our sacred American nation is in no way supported by the galaxy of actual historical facts. EVERYONE in the United States of America in 1860, North South and West, knew EXACTLY the source of the South's wealth and the biggest objection on the part of the Northern and Western business factions was that they were not getting their hands on more of it.

I suggest that you look more closely at the political and economic topography of the decades leading to our great national schism. If you do not understand those aspects (especially the ambitions of northern business interests), you can understand absolutely nothing.

OTOH, thanks for injecting a bit of levity into these proceedings: You, as a self-described long-time Republican, citing the Southern Poverty Law Center. Hilarious.

B

Your conception of the ACW as some great moral crusade to remove the institution of slavery from our sacred American nation is in no way supported by the galaxy of actual historical facts.

I've never maintained that the ACW was a moral crusade to eliminate slavery, not a united one anyway.

Is this galaxy of facts located in an alternative universe? Because if they are, it might explain why you can see them and not me.

EVERYONE in the United States of America in 1860, North South and West, knew EXACTLY the source of the South's wealth and the biggest objection on the part of the Northern and Western business factions was that they were not getting their hands on more of it.

I agree (somewhat) but we're talking about Prof. Livingston. Why doesnt he agree or mention it?

I think you might be under the misapprehension that I'm excusing the North's behavior. There was plenty of bad acting, racism and hypocrisy in the North to choke a possum (There he is again). Does one side have to be 100% right and the other 100% wrong?

I thought we were discussing why the South seceded? Does the South have any agency here? Or, like Prof Livingston maintains, was it forced, cornered, bullied and manipulated into both secession and war?

I suggest that you look more closely at the political and economic topography of the decades leading to our great national schism. If you do not understand those aspects (especially the ambitions of northern business interests), you can understand absolutely nothing.

Great. I suggest that rather than always telling people to go somewhere else to look at the links/books/documents you personally think are "killer" arguments in your favor, you make your arguments here, cite authority here or have a discussion here. Here, where the arguments and discussions are taking place. You know, like, here.

OK, I thought we were talking about Lost Cause Myths, primary reasons for the South's secession and Prof Livingston's arguments?

As far as the evidence goes, I can see the South was angry about a lot of things and they probably were right to be angry. However, try as one might, one cant decouple any of their frustrations from slavery…well, except for the possum hunt.

And really, they had possum hunts in the North too, thus even that wasn't one of those huge cultural gaps.

OTOH, thanks for injecting a bit of levity into these proceedings: You, as a self-described long-time Republican, citing the Southern Poverty Law Center. Hilarious.

You're quite welcome. After all, with all your manufactured outrage to avoid having to address any arguments that are beyond you, you've kept me in stitches. I feel it is high time I returned the favor. :)

Au Pas "Put Up or …"

"It would have been nice if George Washington had freed his slaves earlier.
He was an offensive racist, even for the times. I think he had offsetting, positive qualities but the community of color may or may not differentiate"

Yes you qualify it after saying it, but calling him a racist is a product of the thinking of our current time and judging him by current standards. You could say he believed in white supremacy, that
Would be true, but so were the vast majority of white men and women of that period.

You have been on the side of statue movement or removal in numerous threads. Renaming of forts and buildings. Pro 1619 project and CRT. All of which are a rewrite of our history and in most cases a disrespecting of our forefathers.

Here are 3, but anyone interested can go search the thread posting using "Au pas de Charge".

A good summary of 1619 Historiography
George Will on 1619
What we lose when we lose Thomas Jefferson

You are welcome to your views, that if fine. But it seems you feel a need to belittle and ridicule those who disagree, as do some others. Those who disagree are allowed their views.

I personally don't give a crap, I will dish back. But others may not feel that way.

So I have again answered a question. Please now answer mine about your Trump Pence sign in your yard and how your neighbors felt about it. Feeling the way you do, it must have been hard punching the Trump/Pence vote in the election. Being a "life long Republicans" that would be the only vote possible as it was for me. Actually it would be something we both would have agreed about.

Marcus. It was an interesting video. I don't agree with all he says, but he makes some relevant points. I would love to see some of those parts of their Constitution relating to spending as part of our current government. My God the money we would not be spending! Also making it hard to add new States.

I have said that I believe slavery was the catalyst, basically the powder keg. Abolitionists, especially those of New England who were Vehemently anti Southern, the fuse. The Lincoln election the match. I have said I believe they probably had the right to succeed, as I believe States Rights was the original intention of the founding fathers. They did not want a strong central government. I do not believe their succession was for the good and their eventual defeat was for the best of all involved. Obviously for the slaves. But also for both sides due to the wars that would follow, especially WW2. I do believe succession was Inevitable from the original founding in Massachusetts and Virginia. Cavaliers and Puritans, agrarian and trade.

Not going to go into details, just my opinion.

Good video, thanks

@35thOVI

I have stood up for the 1619 project to not be dismissed out of hand by people who haven't read any of it. It's good to criticize, examine and question one's beliefs to reaffirm their values. I stand up for what I believe in even if I don't always believe in what I am standing up for.
Which brings us to this:

Au Pas "Put Up or …"
"It would have been nice if George Washington had freed his slaves earlier.
He was an offensive racist, even for the times. I think he had offsetting, positive qualities but the community of color may or may not differentiate"
Yes you qualify it after saying it, but calling him a racist is a product of the thinking of our current time and judging him by current standards. You could say he believed in white supremacy, that
Would be true, but so were the vast majority of white men and women of that period.

Several times in this thread ,you've exhibited obstacles with focus but let me help you out. I said:

In any case, if you have some proof that I get on every thread about Jefferson or Washington or even Lee, it's time to to put up, or…

And you use this to dredge up a couple of comments? You do know what "every" thread means?

I did judge Washington by his times and found he was a standout racist even for his own times. It's all on the record. He had a lot of offsetting talents and I can forgive him; unlike most racists who have no other talents whatsoever. Also, you missed my comment about the social contract of the Constitution which is a request for us to live by the Founders terms and which allows us to judge them by our standards.

I like to examine things clearly and objectively. If people want to interpret that approach as an attack, then all I can say is that being for something is not the same as being blind to some things. Again, I think good beliefs can withstand scrutiny and come out stronger.

It's news to me that I FOR statue removal but statue removal is a rewrite of history? I think not.

I am not disrespectful of the Founding fathers nor do I pretend they didn't do what they did. I said I was a lifelong republican. I didn't say I was a religiously extreme, populist, nativist, social reactionary, ideologue. I know the difference and am very happy where I stand.

You might find that if you only always make decisions based on what you think is completely within your rights and in your interest at the moment, you will find that you might lose everything. Sound anything like the Confederacy?

You said that the South made both good and bad choices but you didn't mention what the good choices were.

The comedian Norm Macdonald (who passed away last year) said that good comedy can only proceed from a basic sympathy to the subject. He said he didn't find, for instance, Alec Baldwin's parody on SNL of Donald Trump funny because it came from a place of disdain and not sympathy. I'd say the historian's responsibility has to have the same kind of sympathy for their subject that a comedian does. Without sympathy there is no ability to write about the subject in manner that provides insight. By sympathy, I mean an ability to try and imagine living within the constructs and aspirations of a people separated by culture and time. If there is no sympathy then whatever is written becomes a parody of the truth and its intent to mock rather than understand. I find your comments pas de Charge on this subject filled with mockery rather than sympathy. To ask a question like "what good choices did the South make during that time" is engaging in disdainful sophistry and which is committed to propaganda rather than truth.

OTOH, thanks for injecting a bit of levity into these proceedings: You, as a self-described long-time Republican, citing the Southern Poverty Law Center. Hilarious.

I think that citing the SPLC makes the claim to being a Republican suspect. For information purposes, I have no respect for SPLC and its work. Which is sad for me because in its origins it was a responsible and trustworthy player in race relations. Not anymore.

Au Pas

Your qoute:

"In any case, if you have some proof that I get on every thread about Jefferson or Washington or even Lee, it's time to to put up, or…"

What I actually said:

"Au Pas you asked why I used your quote. I used your quote because you have ‘in other' threads and to a point in here, Attacked people like Washington and Jefferson, based not on what they did as men of their times, but based on the morals and beliefs of our current times. You ask that for Napoleon, do the same for others in history. I don't think that unreasonable."

So I never said "every thread", I said "in other threads" I put single qoutes around it because I can't get bold to work on TMP

You asked:

"You said that the South made both good and bad choices but you didn't mention what the good choices were."

Are you referring to this statement of mine? Maybe you missed the NOT.

". I do ‘not' believe their succession was for the good and their eventual defeat was for the best of all involved. Obviously for the slaves. But also for both sides due to the wars that would follow, especially WW2. I do believe succession was Inevitable from the original founding in Massachusetts and Virginia. Cavaliers and Puritans, agrarian and trade."

I believe I did say they had some things in their Constitution that I thought were good, regulating the central government from over spending and requiring a 2/3's majority to bring in a new state. Things we could really use now. Also a line item veto is not a bad idea, which I think they had.

Also maybe I misunderstood your comments about statue removal or movement, when that movement or removal was due to that statue offending small groups of easily offended individuals. The way I read your comments, I got the impression you were in favor of doing that. Go back and read the threads yourself and or others can. If I was incorrect and you are ‘against' their removal and or movement, then I apologize and welcome you to my side.

I have said pretty much all I can about southern secession, its reasons and my personal beliefs on it. I have also given my personal beliefs on this particular author and what I feel his agenda is, based on this book and his other of his titles. Some may agree with me, some may not, some may be in the middle. That is their choice.

Maybe open discussion will become the norm again with Elon Musk taking over Twitter. One can only hope.

Sorry I have not read everything in this thread, long…

HEH Tort,

Thank you for the qualtiy note, I appreciate this.
Tort, there is some really thoughtful work being done by Black American historians on the quiet racism of the north. The fight to stop slavery from moving into the west was due to the even more extreme racist thinking in the North.
So there is a true modern "Lost Cause" being fought here.
Thanks again, Tort,

John Simmons wrote -
"Tort, there is some really thoughtful work being done by Black American historians on the quiet racism of the north. The fight to stop slavery from moving into the west was due to the even more extreme racist thinking in the North."

Hi John,
I had read some commentary on that point in regards to the Kansas Territory, but I'd be interested if you can recommend any works by current black historians on this topic.

B

This *is* open discussion? Why do you take people disagreeing with you as some kind of assault on your human rights. People on the right seem to equate free speech with "You must allow me to say whatever I want with no disagreement and say 'yes, massuh' after each post" ?

Grow a thicker skin if you can't handle people poking holes in your Confederate ideology (just as the Union poked some holes in the actual Confederates)

The racism of the north has not been something I have seen or heard much about. While it is not outright slavery, it should be given due attention and exposure.

Yes, the right is in fear of free discussion.😂

Was it President Biden who was banned from Twitter? Was it left wing commentators banned from Twitter and Facebook? Trump banned from Twitter, but Putin allowed to remain. 🤣

The staff of Twitter went into Apoplexy when Elon Musk took over. They who Stampeded to their safe spaces. "We must have views from the other side!!??"
Actually most of the left lost it, it was both Hilarious and truly sad.
Whose governmental leaders just formed a Disinformation board with a new Disinformation Czar Nina Jankowicz, in response to Musk's takeover on April 27th?

I have said and you know all to well from other threads, "I" don't fear disagreement. Reread all my entries in this thread.

Yes Bellerophon, it is the right who fears "open discussion". 😂🤣

Subject: Tweets from 'disinformation czar' reveal history of dubious claims on COVID, Hunter Biden and Russia | Fox News


link

Subject: Disinformation Board's Jankowicz Sings About Disinformation to the Tune of ‘Mary Poppins' Song | CNSNews


link

Sorry, but Twitter is not reality. The right is using the vast legal and institutional power (which comes with the threat of violence, not like twitter bans) of ACTUAL LEGISLATION to stop free speech. It's not the left who are banning discussion of gender identity & sexuality in schools, banning discussion of racism in schools, etc.

You are afraid of the world changing. The Bourbons, Hapsburgs, and the Tsar were too I suspect.

And RW commentators were banned from twitter for hate speech / misgendering people. I am not so sure I would want to share a platform with people who would happily see me and mine exterminated.

Bell your words speak on their own.
🙂
Enjoy.

I think we tend to forget that social media is privately owned and the Supreme Court has affirmed that the owners of these platforms may regulate its content under the 1st Ammendment. Trump is free to use his own platform, or any other that will have him.

Unfortunately, any attempt to regulate free speech, for which there are guidelines(like not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) tend to be ignored. The left has its own issues, but the lies that drive so much of social media, whether from the left, right, Russians, CHinese, are killing us.

@Marcus Brutus

To ask a question like "what good choices did the South make during that time" is engaging in disdainful sophistry and which is committed to propaganda rather than truth.

But my very dear Marcus Brutus, I didnt "ask" that question so much as follow up for a clarification from 35thOVI for this statement:

"There is a gigantic modern fallacy at work here. For of course people only think that they would have acted better in history because they know how history ended up. People in history didn't – and don't – have that luxury. They made good or bad choices in the times and places they were in, given the situations and shibboleths that they found themselves with."

I thus asked what good choices the South made? Is this an outrageous question? It may be but dont blame me for asking the question, I didnt bring it up. However, now that it is on the table, I cant think of one good choice they made vis a vis secession and confederacy. I was hoping he, or someone, could point out the good choices they made. Anyone?

Incidentally, Prof. Livingston doesnt assert that the South made good decisions but leans on terms like forced, backed into a corner, bullied. Further, he claims everything the South did around secession was scrupulously legal. Thus, from Prof Livingston, we know what the South did was legal, that their moves were forced on them by the Union and that some of those choices turned out badly. All that is missing are which of those choices were good ones?

I think that citing the SPLC makes the claim to being a Republican suspect. For information purposes, I have no respect for SPLC and its work. Which is sad for me because in its origins it was a responsible and trustworthy player in race relations. Not anymore.

Considering they list Prof Livingston, his colleagues and Institute on the Neo Confederate list in 2004, you might be reassured that this took place closer to the SPLC's "responsible and trustworthy" anti-KKK era.

The comedian Norm Macdonald (who passed away last year) said that good comedy can only proceed from a basic sympathy to the subject.

And dont underestimate yourself, you also have quite a well developed sense of humor. After all, the idea that referencing a SPLC hate list renders someone's republican credentials suspect when neo confederacy (which is literally the exact opposite of republicanism) is supported by those who find the SPLC distasteful is a form of gut busting ribaldry that comes as close as I've ever seen to ironic perfection.

Incidentally, for some of Norm's best work, check him out in Mike Tyson's Mysteries.

Also maybe I misunderstood your comments about statue removal or movement, when that movement or removal was due to that statue offending small groups of easily offended individuals. The way I read your comments, I got the impression you were in favor of doing that. Go back and read the threads yourself and or others can. If I was incorrect and you are ‘against' their removal and or movement, then I apologize and welcome you to my side.

Maybe you did, maybe you didnt but I dont quite see why my position on statue removal has to do with an ability to objectively discuss this topic.

I did have an awful, involuntary thought for a moment that because I didnt agree with your, Marcus Brutus', Blutarski's or Prof Livingston's position on the reasons for secession that you decided I must be doing it for political reasons and went looking for posts that tend to confirm this. But because that would be an admission that you believe people just push their emotional viewpoints and dont really examine the historical evidence not to mention it suggests that you couldn't handle my questions and discussion, that cannot be the case. Thus Im certain that my fleeting, reflexive imagery of someone projecting and seeking for ways to rationalize writing them off is mistaken.

Au Pas

"They made good or bad choices in the times and places they were in, given the situations and shibboleths that they found themselves with."

Look up shibboleths

So they, (being the Confederates), made good decisions based on the times and society they were living in. We may not agree today, but we are judging them based on the beliefs of today's society and Mores, not theirs. They thought succession was the only option they had, rather then being subjected to what they believed was the unfair oppression of the Northern majority, led by the abolitionist of New England and the destruction of their economy and their way of life. So based on their beliefs, at that time, this was a good choice.

From today's perspective, that might not to be true, but we are making that judgment based on the influences of our education and mores.

Does that make all clear?

Please Au Pas really read what I actually say. I personally have no issues with opposing views. It seemed to me some the attacks on others were getting a little nasty. If it bothered me personally, I would quit or run to Bill for protection.

Hi 35thOVI,
You wrote – "They thought [secession] was the only option they had, rather then being subjected to what they believed was the unfair oppression of the Northern majority, led by the abolitionists of New England …"

1860 was a complicated presidential election. I suggest that you have overstated the influence and size of the abolitionist movement in the North. The abolitionists were loud, but not numerous; they represented a relatively minor constituency within the Republican Party. In the time of the 1860 election, the Democratic Party was is considerable internal disarray. Lincoln (IIRC) did electorally carry 17 states (all in the North) versus 11 (all in the South) for the Democrats; but Lincoln did NOT win a majority of the national popular vote.

B

Blutarski, fair point. But what I am saying is "How the South viewed it". It may not have been the reality of the the consensus of the North, but those Abolitionist voices were the loudest. By majority, I meant that the North had the votes necessary to be the majority. So it is what those in the South believed. Somewhat like what the majority of Russians believe about the war with the Ukraine. What they believe may not be true, but they believe it.

So they, (being the Confederates), made good decisions based on the times and society they were living in.

And which were those good decisions? Was it good for them to secede? Did they think it all through before they acted? During their time, did it work out for them?

We may not agree today, but we are judging them based on the beliefs of today's society and Mores, not theirs. They thought succession was the only option they had, rather then being subjected to what they believed was the unfair oppression of the Northern majority, led by the abolitionist of New England and the destruction of their economy and their way of life. So based on their beliefs, at that time, this was a good choice.

The North's unfair oppression against slavery? Are we saying that the South thought that slavery was good and seceded to preserve it?

From today's perspective, that might not to be true, but we are making that judgment based on the influences of our education and mores.

How were they making their decisions? Not based on their education and mores?

Does that make all clear?

Not really but I appreciate your efforts.

The SPLC was founded in 1971 by two wealthy white Democratic attorneys from Montgomery AL – Morris Dees and Joe Levin (you can look them up). It has been a Democratic Party front organization since Day One of its existence. Joe Levin took a leave of absence from the SPLC to run Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential campaign.

As of the year 2022, the SPLC has been "in business" for 51 years; in 2004 it had already been "in business" for 33 years.

Interesting read here -
link

B

Au pas. Glad you at least thank me for the effort. Maybe to others it will be clear what I am saying.

I know, I know, you've said a republican who cites SPLC is "suspect".

So the SPLC putting the Aryan Nations on trial and the KKK is all just a Democratic conspiracy? Was that past their golden age?

Meanwhile, the neo-confederates and confederate sympathizers are "the real republicans"? Are they the only people who are objective?

I see that you side stepped that in my post above. Probably wise. But on the off chance, maybe you could explain that?

But you know, it could be. Maybe the Confederacy's poorly thought out secession was actually a move to support the Republicans' non desire to not end slavery which it ultimately accomplished. Almost like a triple Lindy?

I like it! Ending slavery was an inside job.

This is solid platinum.

Hi 35thOVI,

You wrote -
"Blutarski, fair point. But what I am saying is "How the South viewed it". It may not have been the reality of the consensus of the North, but those Abolitionist voices were the loudest. By majority, I meant that the North had the votes necessary to be the majority. So it is what those in the South believed. Somewhat like what the majority of Russians believe about the war with the Ukraine. What they believe may not be true, but they believe it."

Oh, I was just commenting that the abolitionist faction in the North was not a big influence upon electoral politics. I have absolutely no dispute with your assessment of the broad aspects of the situation; I agree that perceptions among the Southern leadership guided events. My thinking is that the South was probably less concerned about the likelihood of the future adoption of abolition than it was the enormity of the consequences if it was adopted – unless some kind of compensation scheme was put into place to compensate the owners for any legislated emancipation of their slaves, it would have collapsed the entire Southern economy and wiped out the wealth of the region in one fell swoop (a lot of people do not appreciate the huge collective amount of wealth represented by the slaves of the south, who were pledged as collateral against large loans taken out as an every day matter of course to operate the cotton plantation economy. I have no doubt that such a risk loomed large in the salons of Charleston and New Orleans.

Re Ukraine, allow me to suggest that what the world believes to be the case may not be true. But that's another discussion for another time.

B

Blutarski, fair point. But what I am saying is "How the South viewed it". It may not have been the reality of the the consensus of the North, but those Abolitionist voices were the loudest. By majority, I meant that the North had the votes necessary to be the majority.

In some ways youre both right and both wrong.

The Republican Party platform of 1860 didnt speak to broad based abolition but the South certainly wasnt buying it. It's too bad they couldnt get a message from the present that they should go read the Republican platform because for instance, in its "Confederate States of America – Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" SC stated:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

It seems like SC seceded specifically because of slavery.

I wonder what Prof Livingston would make of this?

My thinking is that the South was probably less concerned about the likelihood of the future adoption of abolition than it was the enormity of the consequences if it was adopted – unless some kind of compensation scheme was put into place to compensate the owners for any legislated emancipation of their slaves, it would have collapsed the entire Southern economy and wiped out the wealth of the region in one fell swoop (a lot of people do not appreciate the huge collective amount of wealth represented by the slaves of the south, who were pledged as collateral against large loans taken out as an every day matter of course to operate the cotton plantation economy.

Oh I know, it was so unfair! Morality aside, losing all those slaves would be bankrupting. A financial catastrophe so mind numbing that it drove the slave states to rebel…oh, and states rights.

But at last we agree that both secession and the war were fought over slavery.

From MB …

Calling the video a "shaky try" is a conclusion, not an argument. I hope you take up Livingston's argument which will provide a useful point of departure in this conversation.

Calling it a conclusion seems to be stating the obvious. Won't be taking up his argument to sojourn off into his craziness because I don't support it, and much more likely to argue against it. The idea that you might support it, feel free to elaborate, yet the video is at best only remotely related to the topic of this thread, because he seems to be providing all his info to support the South's seceding now. Promoting the south to secede in today's world is wacky talk. And yes, I'm aware that such is a conclusion too, yet feel free to argue for his beliefs if you'd like.

It seems like SC seceded specifically because of slavery.

You're cherry-picking and misrepresenting the text.

Go here – Confederate States of America – Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Unionlink

- and read closely.

The fundamental and pivotal complaint underlying SC's decision to secede is the persistent and growing violations of the principle of states' rights on the part of northern states and the failure of the federal government to remedy these violations of the property rights (i.e. failure to apprehend and return escaped slaves) of SC citizens.

Secession is founded upon a property rights issue, pure and simple. No mention whatsoever is made of the institution of slavery per se.

Do better homework.

B

You're cherry-picking and misrepresenting the text.

Am I really?

Then what exactly is the fugitive slave act about? Is it not about slavery? Perhaps it is like Baked Alaska where you're not really eating a piece of Alaska?

What other state's right and property issue was SC talking about that didnt involve slavery or slaves?

From the Same SC Declaration of Secession, here's a clause to remember:

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

Thus SC wasnt just worried about abolition, expansion of slavery into the territories, fugitive slaves (and the other states not having the states rights to not enforce that act) and restarting the slave trade. Oh no, they also worried about black people (or slaves, to be fair) being elevated to citizenship and given the vote and then voting against, gulp*, slavery.

Here's another juicy SC Declaration of Secession tidbit:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Sounds like they really thought the non slave states were not only coming to free their slaves but were inciting them to open rebellion by among other things, teaching them to read, so yay getting behind the cause of illiteracy! I have to believe this was a factor in their secession…since it is in their declaration of secession?

I mean unless "slave" is code for something else?

As Blutarski mentioned, the SC convention's basic complaint is the unwillingness of the Federal government to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. As it states

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

This is basic contract law. The Federal Government has reneged on the basic compact between the States and so the contract is null and void.

Remember, the primary concern of the South with respect to the expansion of slavery was constitutional. It was important to the Southern states that they maintain sufficient constitutional muster so as to limit the North's capacity to amend the constitution. The point being that the abrogation of slavery in the States should be a State matter and not something the Federal government should attempt to impose.

One of the things missing in this conversation is the strong anti-slavery elements in the Southern states. Of course, once the North attempted to impose a political solution on the seceding States through force the nationalistic cause trumped the anti-slavery elements. But these forces before the War were significant.

Again, the South did not secede because of slavery and the North didn't go to war to end slavery. That is a basic fact. The real argument was two different visions of what the United States of America are/is. As Shelby Foote noted, before the War it was "The United States of America are" and after the War it was "The United States of America is." Most Americans today forget about the fact that it was originally "States" plural.

IMO South Carolina seceded to preserve its right to maintain slavery and have the fugitive slave law enforced. This underlies everything, as Bruce Catton has said. The legal arguments may satisfy the letter of the law for some, but the intent of the basic principle of the USA, that all men are created equal, was not met. Once these states argued that their rights as legal entities depended on the denial of rights to individuals by enslaving them, they were making slavery the cause of the war.

As Blutarski mentioned, the SC convention's basic complaint is the unwillingness of the Federal government to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.

SC suggested that these Northern States didnt have "States rights" to ignore the Fugitive slave act but the Slave states did have the right to secede if it was not being enforced?

Did they expect the Federal government to make the non slave states enforce the fugitive slave act with military means? If that is the case, wouldnt the South consider secession an even greater crises and by necessity trigger Federal military enforcement against them?

If this was just a legal issue, then why didnt they continue to work through the courts? If someone breaks a contract with you do you take the law into your own hands or go through legal channels?

States Rights isnt a thing itself, it's simply a process to determine policy. You cant spread states rights on a cracker.

The states rights they were interested in pursuing all involved slaves and slavery. I didnt see any others listed.

Additionally, just because they declared states rights doesnt mean they had a right to those rights. Quite a few powers for the Constitution were "implied".

They claim they had no arbiter, but they did in SCOTUS.

In fact, SC says that the Fugitive Slave provision is so important to her and other slave states that without its Article 4 inclusion, there would've been no ratification of the Constitution by the slave states:

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

It sounds like this was a very important provision for the state's survival and yet they wanted the Federal government to enforce it. A very revealing, self serving demand by the slave states which indicates a certain "my way or the highway" approach to nationhood. It would seem that SC believes that they hold the privilege of states rights but that the non slave states should be bound and surrender their state's rights.

Although who knows because these are men of 1860 perhaps judging men of 1776 and 1789 by the standards of their own 1860 times instead of those of the Founders. I heard somewhere that you shouldn't judge people's behavior by current standards. Or are current standards a sort of code to prevent certain people today from examining motives of the past whereas men of 1860 can freely apply their morals and beliefs on men of 1776?

Playing Devils Advocate

🤔

Au Pas, if your statement below is true and these people of the 1860's were judging the men of 1776 and 1789, by their own standards of the 1860's and according to you and others, that judging led to the greatest mistake (succession) and Catastrophe (the Civil War) in US history. Should we of today NOT follow down that same path and make those same horrible mistakes of judging those of another time by the mores and standards of today? That would seem only logical.

"Although who knows because these are men of 1860 perhaps judging men of 1776 and 1789 by the standards of their own 1860 times instead of those of the Founders. I heard somewhere that you shouldn't judge people's behavior by current standards. Or are current standards a sort of code to prevent certain people today from examining motives of the past whereas men of 1860 can freely apply their morals and beliefs on men of 1776?"

"SC suggested that these Northern States didnt have "States rights" to ignore the Fugitive slave act but the Slave states did have the right to secede if it was not being enforced?"

Simple answer -

1 – See the Dred Scott case. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 had been duly voted upon by the United States Congress, formally signed into Federal Law and was therefore officially "the law of the land". However, enforcement the law was widely ignored (formally and informally "nullified") by most northern states at great expense to the southern states. Compare the Jackson administration's threat to take military action against SC in reaction to its official declaration of nullification of the 1832 "Tariff of Abominations" to the total inaction of the Federal government to a decade of nullifications of the Fugitive Slave Act by a number of northern states. It is no surprise whatever that SC finally concluded that the game was irretrievably rigged against the the south.

2 – Nowhere in the American Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution or in any other federal law of the time was the matter of Secession mentioned in any way. Secession had been threatened by various states, both north and south, on numerous occasions as early as the War of 1812. There was no formal prohibition against it in either law or precedent. It was not until 1869 (nine years after the mass secession of the southern states???) that the topic of secession first came to be considered by the Supreme Court as a sub-issue in a dispute over ownership of certain government bonds (Texas vs White). Debate continues even to this day among constitutional law scholars as to the logic of the court's interpretation of the constitutional language. The court's typically dense decision can be read here – link

It is probably not a step too far to argue that the current popular history of the ACW, as taught in our schools, has been "rigged" as well.

B

The 1832 attempt at nullification by SC proves that Southern grievances with the Federal government extended far beyond slavery and occurred prior to the rancor around it. The Federal government had made a decision to prioritize industrialization that favored the North as against the interest of agricultural exports that favored the South. In many respects I think slavery became a symbol, almost a stand in for South's sense of grievance against the Federal government. The election of Lincoln was the last straw.

In 1788, I think it was clearly understood that States could withdraw from compacts based on their own authority. Otherwise, how do the States withdraw from the Articles of Confederation that was meant to be a perpetual union. Certainly, I doubt ratification of the 1788 constitution would have occurred if secession had been explicitly denied. The real question to me is whether, after 70 years the Federal government had its own direct relationship with the citizens of the States independent of the States themselves. If it did then States could not abrogate this relationship on their own authority. The ACW settled that question it seems.

Hi Marcus Brutus,
IIRC, just as the act of joining the United States was subject to approval by a referendum of each state's citizens, so was the act of secession generally assumed to require it.

Short of the Supreme Court's assertion in "Texas vs White" as to the indissolubility of the nation (which I think arguably rests on some dodgy intellectual ground), I'm not sure how one could reasonably divine how the Federal (central) government might assume the right to unilaterally decide upon the passage of time required to consider statehood status as irreversible.

Complicated.

B

But Marcus, agriculture in the South was heavily based on slavery throughout the pre war period. Every complaint the South had with the Federal government seems to come back to slavery in some way. Bruce Catton came to realize this and was an early modern proponent of slavery as the base cause of the war.

It's hard to read the articles of succession and not reach the same conclusion. The word appears almost immediately in many of these proclamations, and the rights the South was protecting were about slavery. Would they have seceded if there had been no slavery in a healthy agrarian economy? Their words told the story, and the Cornerstone speech capped it off.

Interesting question Tort. Even without slavery, would the North and the South have come to blows? As I stated earlier, I believe the animosity existed from the time of the founding. New England Puritans and Southern Cavaliers. I don't believe they ever liked each other. I think even without slavery, eventually war would have come. Distrust and dislike always existed between them. We of course will never know. But we do know the divide exists even today.

1 – See the Dred Scott case. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 had been duly voted upon by the United States Congress, formally signed into Federal Law and was therefore officially "the law of the land". However, enforcement the law was widely ignored (formally and informally "nullified") by most northern states at great expense to the southern states.

Dredd Scott? Not quite follwing here. Are you saying the South seceeded because of Northern noncompliance with the Fugitive Slave Act? Did the Northern sates vote to overturn it?

Compare the Jackson administration's threat to take military action against SC in reaction to its official declaration of nullification of the 1832 "Tariff of Abominations"

Is there a comparison? The South made that Tariff much more painful for the North on purpose and it passed anyway because the North thought it would be for the greater good of the Country. SC overturned it which was like a mini secession. I didnt see it mentioned by SC in its article of secession, thus maybe SC forgot about it but Lost Causers have incorporated it into the South's list of grievances justifying secession?

Just look at the origins of the Bill, which the South made better for them and horrible for the Northeast, and the Northeast still voted for it:

The House committee drafted a bill that imposed very high duties on raw materials, including iron, hemp (for rope) and flax, but eliminated the protective features on woolen goods. The alliance organized by Van Buren that included the middle states and the south voted down every attempt by New Englanders to amend the bill. The alliance was confident the bill was so unfavorable that it would be defeated in Congress, hurting Adams and Clay in the process. To the astonishment of the alliance, New England voted for the final bill, on the grounds that the principle of protection was of enormous value. The bill passed the house 105 to 94 on 23 April and passed the Senate 26 to 21 on 13 May. President Adams signed it and the tariff became law. Adams became a hated man in the South

Farmers in Western states and manufacturers in the Mid-Atlantic States argued that the strengthening of the nation was in the interest of the entire country.[8] This same reasoning swayed two-fifths of U.S. Representatives in the New England states to vote for the tariff increase. In 1824, New England was on the verge of bankruptcy due to the influx of the use of European cloth. New England was in favor of the tariff increase for entering goods from Europe to aid in the country's economic success.

link

It looks a lot more like the South felt they should everything and everyone else should get nothing. Which is why I ask why is it the South gets Sates rights but not the North?

Compare the Jackson administration's threat to take military action against SC in reaction to its official declaration of nullification of the 1832 "Tariff of Abominations" to the total inaction of the Federal government to a decade of nullifications of the Fugitive Slave Act by a number of northern states. It is no surprise whatever that SC finally concluded that the game was irretrievably rigged against the the south.

2 – Nowhere in the American Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution or in any other federal law of the time was the matter of Secession mentioned in any way. Secession had been threatened by various states, both north and south, on numerous occasions as early as the War of 1812. There was no formal prohibition against it in either law or precedent. It was not until 1869 (nine years after the mass secession of the southern states???) that the topic of secession first came to be considered by the Supreme Court as a sub-issue in a dispute over ownership of certain government bonds (Texas vs White). Debate continues even to this day among constitutional law scholars as to the logic of the court's interpretation of the constitutional language. The court's typically dense decision can be read here – link

Not quite the way the Constitution operates but during its drafting there were several proposals to let states unilaterally opt out of the union and they were explicitly excluded from the constitution.

In any event it is true that neither side really wanted to take it to the SCOTUS. But it's not relevant because we are discussing why the South seceded and not whether they could legally do so. Further, the real reasons the South seceded vs the Lost Cause myths about why they seceded.

I mean Missisippi states in their secession document:

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. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

Sure looks like slavery was the reason for Mississippi.

The 1832 attempt at nullification by SC proves that Southern grievances with the Federal government extended far beyond slavery and occurred prior to the rancor around it. The Federal government had made a decision to prioritize industrialization that favored the North as against the interest of agricultural exports that favored the South. In many respects I think slavery became a symbol, almost a stand in for South's sense of grievance against the Federal government. The election of Lincoln was the last straw.

Except that SC and the South seemed to have been able to forget about that basically repealed statute and declare it was about slavery, slaves and black people. This is why I get the idea secession was sparked by slavery.

Additionally, bringing up reasons for secession that the slave states didnt bring up themselves tends to make it look like revisionist lost cause rationale.

Short of the Supreme Court's assertion in "Texas vs White" as to the indissolubility of the nation (which I think arguably rests on some dodgy intellectual ground), I'm not sure how one could reasonably divine how the Federal (central) government might assume the right to unilaterally decide upon the passage of time required to consider statehood status as irreversible.

There was the settled law of Marbury v. Madison which gives SCOTUS sole right of interpreting the Constitution. The slave states didnt seem to want to go the legal right. Not getting what you want, isnt a legal reason to secede. Not getting what you want might provide an a populist or emotional one but neither an intellectual or legal one.

In any case this is yet another deflection form the reason the South seceded which was over slavery.

I mean, just look at the reasons declared by the great state of Mississippi:

[The hostility by the federal government to slavery]… has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

The bit in bold appears to be a very early version of anti-CRT. Interesting.

Wow, some serious reasons for secession. Let's see, slavery, slavery, slavery…oh, and slavery.

Of course, negro equality mightve been the absolute last straw. Thus it wasnt just slavery that caused the South to secede but also good, old fashioned racism.

Playing Devils Advocate

🤔

Au Pas, if your statement below is true and these people of the 1860's were judging the men of 1776 and 1789, by their own standards of the 1860's and according to you and others, that judging led to the greatest mistake (succession) and Catastrophe (the Civil War) in US history. Should we of today NOT follow down that same path and make those same horrible mistakes of judging those of another time by the mores and standards of today? That would seem only logical.

"Although who knows because these are men of 1860 perhaps judging men of 1776 and 1789 by the standards of their own 1860 times instead of those of the Founders. I heard somewhere that you shouldn't judge people's behavior by current standards. Or are current standards a sort of code to prevent certain people today from examining motives of the past whereas men of 1860 can freely apply their morals and beliefs on men of 1776?"

You can do that. I think it's an interesting topic but I'm not the one that brings it up, you and others are. You tell me if it's what the South engaged in and whether it's alright? You tell me if it brought disaster on the South.

I just wonder if it's a two way or a one way street kind of rule?

I have found that a number of history websites list the secession documents with the slavery references edited out of abbreviated versions. No wonder we never resolve this.

As we've been reminded, the question under discussion is the motivation or reasons for the secession of Southern States. Whether the States had a legal basis for secession is another matter. Interestingly, much of the content of the SC 1860 Constitutional Convention is devoted to establishing a legal and constitutional claim to secession.

The key paragraph of the SC convention declaration for me is this

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

It is pretty obvious to me that the election of Lincoln signaled a fundamental shift of the political landscape of the Union. The Northern and Mid-Western states had managed to elect a President against the unanimous dissent of the South. This is a radical moment in the history of the United States. The Southern states recognized that they political center of the country had shifted and that they had lost a veto over the national government. Slavery was the test case for the moment but the issues went much farther.

As I have mentioned above the North and the South represented two visions for the country and two different understandings of the role of the Federal government. The election of Lincoln established that one vision had won permanent political vindication. You can see the evidence of this in what was happening in the North during and after the War. With the South absent during the War and sidelined during Reconstruction an unbridled corporate capitalism was unleashed on America. The colonization of the West took off during and after the War. The biggest loser from the ACW after the South were the Plains and South West Indians.

Slavery in 1860 was the essentially the representation of a gulf that had growing between the two sections for two decades. So obviously it plays some role in secession but it was really an effect of a political divide rather than the cause.

The political divide was most strongly characterized by slavery as none of the other issues rose to such a contentious height IMO. The constitutional issues could still be addressed in less aggressively hostile ways. But years of bitter confrontation probably made that impossible by 1860.

Without slavery, IMO, the "two visions" of America would not have led to secession and the attack on Sumter. But we rarely look at the issue this way.