NASCAR Cancels ‘General Lee’ Parade Lap in Phoenix Over Confederate Flag Concerns

I HAVE read the articles of secession. 4 states mention slavery directly. 7 states seceded before Ft. Sumter and 4 seceded after. The states seceding after did so in refusal to send troops to aid in Lincoln's war. There were 4 border states that had slavery that did not secede and slavery was left untouched in those states until ratification of the 13th Amendment after the war.

The real reasons for secession were discussed in both Northern and Southern newspapers and other sources. Lincoln said as much himself. Here are some examples:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".

Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".

London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation".

North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism."

editorial in the Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union."

New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."

NY Times 22 March 1861

"...the mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the principle seceding States are now for commercial independence."

Boston Transcript newspaper, March 18 1861.

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"

Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861

 

Which is why the Union was almost entirely made up of Free States, and the Confederacy was entirely made up of Slave States right?

 

Wake up Nimrod...defeat , well hell yes....they lost . The shame part should be directed at the notion that foolish people thought they fought for a just cause.

 

if a flag is 'just a cloth' to you, then why would it give you pleasure to use it as toilet paper? Obviously, you don't believe your own words.

 

All a bunch of nonsense.

Please, find us an example of another issue that divided the country as much as Slavery did in the pre-civil war period. Everything from the Missouri Compromise, to the Compromise of 1850, to the Dredd Scott Case, to the Fugitive Slave Laws, to John Brown's Raid of Harper's ferry, to Uncle Tom's Cabin all involved slavery, and all divided the country right along the same lines it experienced when the South left the union in 1860 (set off by the election of an abolitionist to the presidency).

 

No offense, but I don't have the time to teach this subject. What you are telling me is equivalent to what they teach grade school children, the simplification of a war. It was not that simple and if you've ever taken Civil War history classes in college you would realize this. In short...no...it was not the free north vs the enslaved south. Most of it had to do with industrial power, and political power in congress. However I'll leave you to research any non-biased link you feel is honest to you, because this is how most historians have analyzed this subject. This is not a black and white war, in the sense of 2 points of contest, and of the sense of raciality. The civil war may have had positive results in the topic of slavery but it was not fought for slavery. America was not a divided nation trying to fight each other over the rights of African Americans - it was political strife, much like today, except the people at that time had a much lower flash point then we do today. I would remind you that the victor decides how history will be remembered, and this case is a shining example. What we teach grade school children is vastly different from what historians have uncovered from their own research.

 

Except it goes far beyond simply recognizing that the Union was mostly made up of Free states, and the Confederacy were made up of Slave states. There's also the fact that every divisive issue that led up to the 1860 secession revolved around slavery in some form or another. An abolitionist being elected president was simply the tipping point. You had almost 50 years of a divisive political events and each one involved slavery.

If you can find a more divisive issue, and give examples, I'll love to see it.

 

So facts are nonsense to you? I'll remember that.

What your overly simplified view fails to understand is that the North did not want blacks there in the first place. Two reasons for this. First, there is the issue of racism. Read some of the Black Codes from Ohio, for instance, or the Oregon Constitution of 1859. Northerners and those Northerners migrating to new territories wanted to keep the blacks bottled up in the South. Secondly, they were also afraid of slave labor competing with Free Men. That is what the Free Soilers were all about. Lincoln himself advocated re-colonizing the blacks either in the Caribbean or back to Africa. Of course, the war and the 13th Amendment blew the lid off all those hopes.

Also, you are wrong in assuming Abe Lincoln was an abolitionist. His own speeches and writings give lie to that. The Republican Party was made up of Free Soilers, Whigs and Abolitionists. It is grossly misleading to say that Republican = Abolitionist. That would be about as true as saying all Republicans today are Tea Partiers.

Try again when you get over the myths and learn some real history.

 

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/preston-brooks-attacks-charles-sumner

your ass sir. I believe I have handed it to you.

 

Julia Grant had a slave. eieio

 

You're going to do what the Obama FCC says, and you are going to like it.

 

You can buy it here

$8.88 per roll plus shipping... I seriously doubt you'll be buying much, if any.

 

Where did I say that the North was a black man's paradise? I simply said that no issue divided the country more at that time period than slavery. Thus its no surprise that when the Civil War erupted, it erupted along the lines of Free state and Slave state.

I also think its hilarious that you say that I was wrong to assume that Lincoln was an abolitionist and then you go on and mention that his party was largely abolitionist. Yeah, Lincoln was more than likely a stone-cold White supremacist, but he still felt that slavery was inherently an evil institution and was opposed to it. That brought him into direct conflict with Southern leaders who sought to protect it because it was the economic core of the Southern economy.

I'm sure you can provide a better reason why South Carolina and other states would suddenly leave the Union as soon as Lincoln, a man who was known to oppose the expansion and institution of slavery, was elected.

 

You can interpret the tensions between the North and South as slave vs free state, but it's really more about an industrial vs agrarian economy. Like most wars, this one was about money.

 

That is the gradeschool version of the Civil War. It's a little more complex than that.

And what reason would the non-slave owning commoners have to obey those orders?

Okay? That sounds like a point in my favor.

 

States rights were at the core of it, but if you know anything about American history from the 1820's up to the civil war, you will know that the issue of slavery had been causing more conflict than any other issue.
-------------------
They were following men they believed were right on the issues (including slavery), but just because you follow the leader you think is right, doesn't make it right...
-------------------
No it doesn't, it shows the wealthy slave owners wanted the common man to fight their battles for them.

 

The only reason that is the case is because Northern slave owners were largely put out of business during the American Revolution. Because of this, their economic paradigm necessarily shifted away from slavery and towards industrial ventures that relied on exportation to grow. Since the South lacked an industrial sector, they needed to import a great deal of their manufactured goods. However, the South preferred to import such goods from England for various economic and political reasons. In order to gain a competitive advantage over England, the Northern industrialist and banker class used the Federal government to impose tariffs on English goods, which forced Southerners to pay more for imports. The North used the Federal government to leech off the southern economy and to incrementally subjugate their populace, which is why the Civil War saw the split between slave and non-slave states. It was purely economic. The Northern industrialists and bankers didn't care one bit about human rights and especially the rights of blacks.

 

Nonsense. That is revisionist history. The biggest issue always concerned the Jeffersonian-Hamiltonian rift. The Civil War was simply the culmination of Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian conflicts over economics and political philosophy. It was fundamentally a battle between agrarian Jeffersonian democracy and industrial-financial Hamiltonian mercantilism. Slavery was just a propaganda device and nothing more. None of the Northern power-brokers gave a crap about the rights of blacks. If freeing black people had been their goal, then they wouldn't have exterminated the native Americans after winning the Civil War.

They weren't fighting for slavery. They didn't even own slaves. They were fighting for economic and political reasons. The North had been hurting the Southern economy for years and were incrementally and politically subjugating them via the Federal government.

Obviously. The powerful always exploit the common man, but that is not a condemnation of the commoner who fights the battles but rather a condemnation of the powerful interests who hide behind their wealth.