Which US PResidents were Horrid?: Part II

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Perhaps you only read the one for Texas. Its the least blatent about it being because of slavery.

Least blatant? From the Texas Declaration of Secession:

In all the non-slave-holding States...the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party...based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States

...all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations...

[Ramo]

Regarding your one and only argument: the secession papers said the war was about slavery, so it must've been about slavery.

The secession papers were propaganda, created principally for a legalistic reason, namely to gain European recognition and support (and to ward off an invasion). Propaganda is not where one should get information. The fact of the matter is that abolition was a phantom threat, while higher tariff duties were real, substantial threats, which almost caused a civil war 30 years earlier.

Florida didn't secede till the 10th. So there were no citizens of the Confederacy to fire on in Florida. There was no Confederacy at all yet. Just two states had seceded by the 8th and then Florida on the 10th.

The convention assembled in Tallahassee in early January 1861, and on January 10, adopted the ordinance of secession by an overwhelming vote when the bulk of the cooperationists went over to the secessionists.

On top of which you left out WHY they fired. The people the the US troops fired at were trying to take the fort. If shooting to defend the Fort counts then trying to take the Fort does as well and that obviously began before the defensive fire.

Irrelevant. You were ranting about firing the first shot, and I told you who did - federal troops.

So you want to leave it at that or go to Ft. Sumter as that one is US citizens trying to take a US fort.

Fine, you want to talk Ft. Sumter? I wouldn't exactly call resupplying a fort while negotiating its supposed surrender particularly defensive.

Whats that got to do with it.

Again, here is your post:
"Many of the complaints in the secession documents were infact over their desire to retain a strong voice in the Senate and to do so they wanted tp force slavery on new states."
By seceding, they have no more voice on the fate of the Western territories, nullifying your argument.

I was speaking about what the documents were claiming as reasons for secession. They were talking out of both sides of their mouths. States rights for them to continue with slavery and forcing slavery on new states.

Yes, yes, yes. The Southern leaders were hypocritical feudalistic, authoritarian bastards who deserved to die horrible, horrible deaths. You're preaching to the choir, here. But it is not what the debate is over.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Least blatant? From the Texas Declaration of Secession:

All right you caught me. I didn't feel like rereading it again to be sure whether it was the most or the least blatant. I new it was different from the rest. I shouldn't try to go easy on someone because they are from Texas.

Yeah that one is REAL clear that its about slavery.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
The fact of the matter is that abolition was a phantom threat,

I'm not entirely sure that abolition was such a phantom threat. Lincoln was elected from a party opposed to the extention of slavery and other Southern interests and, predictably, had virtually no support from within the South. It is quite possible that the Southern States saw that the writing was on the wall.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ethelred
So why didn't they mention it?

As Ramo previously mentioned, the tariffs that the North wanted to impose were legal (even if they did cripple the South). Why would the South bring up tariffs in the secession documents if they were trying to come up with a legal justification for seceding?

Well they sure thought it did. They said so. If the people that decided to secede said it was over slavery I think I will take their documented words over your guesses.

Again, the secession documents were created as a legal justification for secession. Why, then, would the South have brought up perfectly legal actions taken by the North in its secesion documents? The previous actions taken by the North that were illegal revolved around slavery, not tariffs. The previous (and future) actions taken by the North that would have caused (and later did come to cause) the most economic harm to the South were tariffs, though.

Lincoln's political platform was built around high tariffs. The reason the South seceded was to avoid these high tariffs. However, this did not constitute a legal justification for secession, while the North's previous actions with regards to slavery did provide legal justification for secession. Since the secession documents were intended to provide a legal justification for secession, they contained a great deal on slavey and not a bit on tariffs.

[Ramo]

It doesn't matter. Lincoln needed Southern support to peacefully abolish slavery.

[KrazyHorse]

I voted for everybody there except Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt because I had some inkling of what they'd done, Rutherford B. Hayes because his first name is that of the McGill physics building, and McKinley because he was assassinated, suggesting he'd done something worthwhile.

[Ramo]

McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist.

[KrazyHorse]

Actually, I was aware of that, surprisingly enough. Did it have anything to do with his actions, or was it just a general "Government is Bad" type of statement.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Actually, I was aware of that, surprisingly enough. Did it have anything to do with his actions, or was it just a general "Government is Bad" type of statement.

I believe the assassin was mentally unstable. Ramo probably didn't mention this because he felt it would be redundant.

[Ramo]

Actually, I was aware of that, surprisingly enough. Did it have anything to do with his actions, or was it just a general "Government is Bad" type of statement.

Well, McKinley was, more than usual, a protectionistic and imperialistic bastard.

But all I know about the assassin is that he was a disciple of Emma Goldman. IIRC, he wasn't particularly educated, but that might be gov't revisionism that I've read. I think the assassination would fit under a general "gov't is bad" label (I'd wager that most of what he opposed would've been actions by state and local gov't).

[Ramo]

I believe the assassin was mentally unstable. Ramo probably didn't mention this because he felt it would be redundant.

Bastard.

[KrazyHorse]

Ahhh, anarchists. Such a nice idea, so improbable. It's a good thing socialist paradises are easily implementable.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Bastard.

[DinoDoc]

Ramo, get on ICQ.