Would you support Texas in its secession?
- Thread starter Bill3000
- Start date
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
If it was about slavery, why did anti-slavery Europe take the South's side? Break up of the Union? Maybe... But I think Candle has it right more or less, slavery became the issue once war broke out but money - follow the money - was the motive. How could Lincoln announce a draft so the North could force the South to pay higher taxes because northern manufacturers hated competing with Europe for ag products? Try selling that to the masses...Back in the 1820's the South saw a secessionist movement when slavery was entrenched. It was over export taxes and it was Charleston SC leading the way. Thats not a coincidence, trade with Europe was the money issue driving taxes and secession.
I think cheaper cotton and personal grudges had something to do with it.
Zack
99% hot gas
I'm pretty sure it was.
Berzerker
Deity
and as an American do you believe secession is an inherent right?
Zack
99% hot gas
"Europe" didn't take any sides in the American Civil War.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
That's the scariest thing you have posted so far. I hope you didn't commit any more crimes while you were over there.
Such an annoying line of thought. It's not like French people can also be referred to as Europeans or something!
I don't see why people who don't even like Texas should fight to keep them in the Union.
Secession seems like a damn fine right to me. I sure wish my state could secede from my american nation.
Berzerker
Deity
sure they did, they were trading finished products for southern ag products and the Congress did the bidding of northern manufacturers and hit both the South and Europe with higher taxes. That would anger anyone... England came close to actual financial and military help but the Northern blockade told Europe to stay out of it.
America was founded on the inherent right of secession, now its called treason
sure they did, they were trading finished products for southern ag products and the Congress did the bidding of northern manufacturers and hit both the South and Europe with higher taxes. That would anger anyone... England came close to actual financial and military help but the Northern blockade told Europe to stay out of it.
America was founded on the inherent right of secession, now its called treason
No America was founded on the right to have a say in their government. In the Revolutionary War every legal avenue was exhausted, and the people were still not permitted representation. In the Civil War they couldn't be bothered to follow the law while they had full representation.
The US Revolutionary War and Civil War are in no way comparable.
So, according to you:
- NOT participating in the war in alliance with the rebels
- NOT impeding the Federal blockade that made any trade agreements they signed with the traitor states essentially null and void, not even so much as protesting its imposition
- NOT so much as according official recognition to the Confederacy (you will note that the Roebuck motion was totally shot down in Parliament)
- NOT permitting the sale of advanced British ironclad warships to the traitor navy
- NOT even so much as suggesting that the Great Powers of Europe do anything pro-Confederacy other than propose a ceasefire - a move that was even so REJECTED - in the Drouyn de Lhuys notes of October 30, 1862
- NOT providing assistance to the isolated Confederate forces in Texas from French-controlled Mexico, anywhere from small arms to foodstuffs to communications to troops
- NOT agreeing to the Preston suggestion of winter 1864 for a Franco-Mexican-Confederate military alliance
- REDUCING reliance on agricultural products from the traitor states by diversifying into Indian and Egyptian cotton and other cash crops
constitute "taking the South's side". So, basically, you're delusional.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
The idea that Europe "took sides" in the American Civil War has been thoroughly debunked by Dachs, but let's look at the other arguments.
slavery became the issue once war broke out but money - follow the money - was the motive. How could Lincoln announce a draft so the North could force the South to pay higher taxes because northern manufacturers hated competing with Europe for ag products? Try selling that to the masses...
Money was most certainly the motive, and slavery is money. The costs of tariffs and taxes were peanuts compared to the cost of outlawing slavery, and that was universally known. Again, Slavery wasn't the justification after the war broke out. (It would be a poor one, do to the Abolitionist movement) but the underlying cause. And in case you hadn't noticed, the South had already seceded before Lincoln had a chance to do anything.
Slavery was never as entrenched as you seem to think, but more importantly, the issue had most definitely died down by the time the Civil War broke out. Charleston was the center of that earlier movement because of James Calhoun, one of the most influential politicians of the era.
Berzerker
Deity
The Declaration of Independence is the Founding Fathers argument for secession - not having a say in govt. Did they give the vote to slaves, Indians, women, and non-property holders? The law was corrupt, the Constitution "assumes" Congress will act as a referee and stay neutral, not impose taxes on certain groups to coerce them into selling northern manufacturers their goods. Trade wars under the Articles of Confederation is the reason Congress was given trade powers, now Congress was engaging in trade wars. Apparently something similar happened in the 1820s because Charleston SC led a secessionist movement back then and it was tied to trade and taxes. Were the Founding Fathers calling them traitors? Some were still alive...
But more to the point: why does an agreement made by a group of people 200 years ago morally obligate you and me to maintain that agreement? Do we not have the moral authority to decide for ourselves without the label of traitor? Traitor to what? A union you had no voice in forming? Thats like calling the baptized traitors for leaving the Catholic Church.
And yet all those state governments ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights, thereby committing their states to abide by it.
Ulyaoth
Emperor
I just find the issue of secession funny and strange. Where in the constitution does it explicitly forbid secession? And besides, you say the states are bound to the constitution as an agreement, well what if the federal government breaks that agreement by overstepping its bounds?
Berzerker
Deity
I said short of military aid
I said short of military aid, but dont expect me to believe Europe didn't complain about the North's blockade or trade policies.
I googled the Roebuck motion, what does it have to do with the US Civil War?
I said short of military aid
Right after the South's loss at Antietam?
I said short of military and financial aid, WTH is yer problem?
The war was lost. Gettysburg was the South's last hurrah. Lee failed to show Europe the South was now a good bet to win with help... Now why would Europeans be suggesting all these alliances if Europe was neutral? Can you answer that?
Gee, a blockade wont allow the free flow of trade so Europe looks elsewhere, and this proves Europe wasn't sympathetic to the South?
Anyone with an ounce of fairness would have taken the South's side. I said Europe took the South's side short of military and financial aid and you immediately jump in with the absence of military aid to prove me wrong?
