Southern secession

I am a bit confused by your comments, what exactly are you trying to say?

APmorelikePU wrote:if i would have known that i would have picked my own cotton

:confused:

I believe that comment is in reference to slavery ending.

pianogirl2422 wrote:I believe that comment is in reference to slavery ending.

Now it makes sense.

brewerjo wrote:Maybe I can shed some light on the situation at hand. Secession was inevitable because the Northern states were constantly pushing their OWN agenda down the throats of the Southerners. The main rallying point behind the civil war was not slavery but in fact state's rights. Slavery would have ended, and there is no question about it. Only about 16% of the Southern populace owned at least one slave. Robert E. Lee is credited with stating that he knows slavery is wrong, and after the war, they would end it. A large number of the Southern members to the Congress of the Confederate States of America had already planned legislation granting freedom to the Slaves. Whether the South would have won or not, slavery would have ended. And by the Way, the Emmancipation Proclamation did not end slavery. That is for everyone's knowledge. The Emmancipation Proclamtion "granted" freedom to the slaves in the former Southern States, which since they were apart of a different nation now, there was no legally binding nature of the document. Also the document did not free the slaves in the Northern States such as Kentucky and those States. There were 4 northern states that still enforced slavery even into the end of the Civil War. It was the 13th Amendment that granted freedom to slaves after the War was over.

I agree with many points in your comment but i disagree with your central argument that "Secession was inevitable because the Northern states were constantly pushing their OWN agenda down the throats of the Southerners". Although the South and the North constantly ran into conflicts into divided agendas like the American System, Protective Tariffs and a Bank of the United States(BUS), those issues alone would never have pushed the South into secession. For the most part, the South and the North were able to compromise on those issues when they came up (For example Tariff of abominations was resolved through compromise after the South Carolina nullification crisis). But slavery was one issue there simply was no compromise on. The slavery issue tended to come up everytime a new territory tried to apply for a state and the pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces attempted to compromise for it but they never lasted. The most successful one was the Missouri Compromise (or Compromise of 1820) and that lasted 30 years simply because no new territory tried to join Union and break the balance in the Senate between slave and non slave states( 15 to 15). When California applied, the issue was at hand again and there was heated debates. Clay tried to be the "great compromiser" once again but his omnibus bill simply contained too many points. Finally it was passed by Douglas with Compromise of 1850 but that was shattered 4 years later with Kansas Nebraska Act. The point I'm trying to bring up is that if it wasn't for the issue of slavery, there would not have been this much tension between the North and the South and they probably would have worked things out. As for the things that the North trying to push down the South's necks, everything was in South's favor except the slavery issue (look at the results of panic of 1857 when North blamed the South for it). You bring up a good point about the emancipation proclamation not freeing slaves but that simply was because of the need for the border states and the butterneck states that had Confederate sympathsizers . Although Lincoln was very admirable in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, there is a need to doubt his motives. First, he could be considered a racist to modern standards(although most people were during his time and that could be another debate). Secondly, the Union needed a moral cause to win the war. Thirdly, Union wanted to increase the number of volunteers and there's no better way than to tack on a moral cause to the war. I just don't think the Civil War would have ever started if if wasn't for the slavery issue. I think slavery would eventually die out in the long run (I am in agreement with Lincoln's belief that the soil in the South would end up ruined because of overuse and the plantation owners would have to move to better lands which will become less and less so they will have less and less need for slaves) if the war had not occurred.

Such a simple question but very interesting all the same.

I'm going to disagree that secession was inevitable. However, though it wasn't the only cause/reason leading up to it, if there hadn't been slavery, it probably would not have led to the South becoming alarmed at their loss of influence in elections.

Word to Brewerjo!
And Biggie_rhs's photo should replace Bush with Lincoln for this particular forum.
Now, I don't think it'd be worth it, but I believe the South was absolutely justified in their secession. Did we not do the same thing less than a hundred years ago with England?

As Azntoxicwaste pointed out, and I won't use quote due to the long post...There were more than one issue that contributed to tension, and there were excellent points made about the compromising capabilities of the two sections. However, a quick comparison can be made when the issue of having a moral cause behind war. The Crusades in Europe was similar, in that, people in general usually would like to have some sort of divine reason behind bloodshed. I suspect it is for the purpose of alleviating their consciences. Straying from topic aside, I will say that I believe succession was inevitable. The North side of the country wished to establish a strong, central government, and the South decided they wanted individual, sovereign states. The North's idea of goverment wasn't exactly unconstitutional, however, the rights of the states is explicitly stated the Constitution. This divide in philosophy was going to lead to bloody confrontations eventually. As is human nature to fight when tensions exist.

Curious, what's your political/religious background thecamoqueen?

I have little religious background. I live in a conservative republican household, and I tend to be very opinionated. I apologize if I have offended any of you...