re: Missouri doesn't belong in the SEC

quote:

---

My interpretation of the main reason the South seceded, was because the North was trying to force a certain way of life on the South. Like you said, the North was struggling at best fiscally, and the South was killing it with cotton.

Everyone knows that the South, especially wealthy Southerners, were/are very prideful, so the North had to know that by pushing the anti-slavery issue on them, it would at some point lead to war. Which the North thought they'd win easily due to their population, infrastructure, and manufacturing capabilities.

They were not prepared for that Southern pride on the battle field.

I think it was about money more than slavery, but like I said above, I think it was mainly about preserving their way of life. But again, this could fall back to the semantics argument...

---

So.

Full.

Of.

Fail.

quote:

---

No, no it's not.

---

Your problem is that you've formed your opinion based too much on "books" you've read and not enough source material.


The fact of the matter is that the northern states had always been more populous than the southern states, that's why the southern states wanted to include slaves (or a portion thereof) to be included in determining the states' representatioon in Congress. The New England states almost ceceded over the issue of slavery in 1789. They agreed to compromise with the 3/5 clause. As time went on, counting 3/5 of the slave population for representation in Congress wasn't enough anymore to insure that northern states wouldn't gain a numerical superiority in Congress. Why were the southerners so concerned about losing representation in Congress? They were afraid the northern states would vote to abolish slavery.

The efficacy of a strong federal government wasn't proven at the dissolution of the confederacy in 1865, it was at the dissolution of the Confederacy in 1789. A loose confederacy of independent states had ALREADY been rejected for a stronger federal government.

As far as your statement about slavery in the rest of the "free world" (how ironic) being acceptable, you are simply wrong. Most civilized countries had abolished slavery in the 18th century. the US was one of the LAST countries to abolish slavery.

Lastly consider these statements of secession:

MISSISSIPPI:
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world...

GEORGIA:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

TEXAS:
...In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, 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.

Read the speeches during the admission of Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska into the Union.

Rummel, I'm afraid your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with the facts, but if not - READ SOME SOURCE MATERIAL.

Yes, it primarily over the issue of slavery. Their own words reveal as much.

quote:

---

But I agree: these "Glorious Lost Cause" folks don't want to be confused with facts.

---

The funny thing to me is that here is Mississippi, in a document spelling out exactly why they were seceding from the Union, basically stands up and says, "We are leaving the Union over the issue of slavery!" and people think that there is any debate?

quote:

---

The funny thing to me is that here is Mississippi, in a document spelling out exactly why they were seceding from the Union, basically stands up and says, "We are leaving the Union over the issue of slavery!" and people think that there is any debate?

---

And the funny thing ro me is that there are those of you who think that it's just so black and white.

If it were, then these discussions and debates would not be going on this long after.

quote:

---

But I agree: these "Glorious Lost Cause" folks don't want to be confused with facts.

---

Please...

quote:

---

As for average Jeb., they were afraid of losing their way of life. Right or wrong, it was THEIR way of life, so they fought for what they thought was right.

---

The "average Jeb"? No one cared about the average Jeb - then as now. The rich controlled the government. There were two primary reasons Jeb was fighting, 1. Money. He was paid to fight. 2. The draft. He was forced to fight. Even then by 1864 Jeb was deserting in DROVES. As a matter of fact much of the destruction during Sherman's march through Georgia was caused by southern deserters (and 'freed' slaves). Sherman told the farmers of Georgia, "You may burn your cotton so that we may not get it, but don't burn your corn - we want that." Much of the destruction was self-inflicted.

quote:

---

And the funny thing ro me is that there are those of you who think that it's just so black and white.

If it were, then these discussions and debates would not be going on this long after.

---

The only ones it's not black and white to are the apologists. Mississippi LITERALLY spelled it out in black and white.

Look at some of what Georgia had to say in why they seceded:

"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation."

Georgia is saying that this is the reason they are leaving the Union. It is very clear.

Remember, these are the very documents each state produced explicitly for the purpose of explaining why they were seceding. No interpretation necessary, it's all spelled out.

The only reason I can see that people still want to debate the reasons is because they simply don't WANT to think it was over the issue of slavery, so they come up with all kinds of rationalizations and justifications - completely ignoring the very documents that make it clear.

It's sad, really, and one of the primary reasons Americans see so many southerners as ignorant. the facts are right there in front of their faces, yet they choose to ignore them. Hence the basis for the claim "ignorant". It's quite literally true.

quote:

---

Funny how this Bama guy says Missouri fought for the Union.

---

A lot of them did, here are some Union regiments formed from Missouri voluteers:

CAVALRY (58 Complete)
ARTILLERY (47 Complete)
ENGINEERS (6 Complete)
INFANTRY (226 Complete)
MISSOURI HOME GUARD (57 Complete)
MILITIA ORGANIZATIONS (53 Complete)

You realize that the state of Missouri never left the Union, right?

Of course many Missourians also signed up to fight for the Confederacy. Approximately 110,000 joined the Union forces, and 90,000 joined the Confederate side. Missouri was indeed a state divided. If I'm not mistaken, Missouri also has the distinction of having the most number of battles fought in it than any other state. Most were much smaller battles than were occurring in Virginia, but the were many.

As for racism, you can't get much more blatant examples than the sentiments of Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln. Sherman spoke of a "final solution of the Indian problem” by “killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places.” so that the railroad that he invested in could be completed. Grant, as mentioned before was a slavedriver before the war. Lincoln wanted to expel all the freed slaves to Africa, he summed up his sentiment thusly: "We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable."