Suppressed Information

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,403
Caribbean
Hmm. You might have me, given your definition. I gotta think about this.
It's not really my definition. This is from Webster, a "Yankee" dictionary. lol
"expand - to increase the extent, number, volume, or scope of "
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,375
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Moved to the Chamber.

There will be no warnings or tolerance. Instabands will be the result of any violations.

Play nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Modor
Dec 2017
272
Florida
The type of agrarian system that formed southern attitudes was a result of slavery. Farming on a large, almost industrial scale and the need to defend slavery caused a regional insularity and a lack of enterprise and industry. Slavery affected almost all aspects of southern society including the nature of agriculture, the care of the land, migration patterns and immigration.

As for tariffs, the Southerners had the tariff thing going their way until they rebelled.

In any event the one regional difference that caused rebellion was slavery. I think if the Southern states had not had slavery they wouldn't have rebelled. Had they not had slavery their society and needs would've been profoundly different. Hell, I see lingering effects of slavery in modern southern Whites.

Do you think there would've been a rebellion without the need to defend slavery?

Slavery was a factor, I've never said it didn't influence the South. My thesis was that it wasn't the ONLY factor. The tariffs were an on/off issue and an issue that was being discussed at the start of the Lincoln administration. It was a factor for the South.

To answer your question about would there have been a rebellion: Yes, I think there would have been a secession even without slavery. Regionalism and differing opinions about the role of government have shown that secession is possible (the New England region almost seceding because of the 1812 War) and I still think it affects our politics to this day (some say that the US is currently undergoing a cold civil war). Regionalism is a powerful enough factor to cause a rebellion and I think the South was on the path to split with the North whether slavery or not.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,403
Caribbean
Slavery was the root cause for the South. It was not a cause for the North to send troops into the South. That was Secession.
This fails to recognize, at the least, the difference between root cause and immediate cause. To have a root cause, there can't be any other cause that precedes it. Of course, slavery was a "root" or precedent cause for the North, before reuniting the union joined the chain of causation.

Just in general, every war is fought for the cause of controlling territory and the rights that land control engenders. The "north" and Republican Platform made it clear that they intended to take control of the West immediately. And why? Slavery!
 
Dec 2017
272
Florida
This fails to recognize, at the least, the difference between root cause and immediate cause. To have a root cause, there can't be any other cause that precedes it. Of course, slavery was a "root" or precedent cause for the North, before reuniting the union joined the chain of causation.

Just in general, every war is fought for the cause of controlling territory and the rights that control engender. The "north" and Republican Platform made it clear that they intended to take control of the West immediately. And why? Slavery!
Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,403
Caribbean
So you think the Republicans offer a better contemporary alternative for American Blacks?
I would defend part of his claim. First, all leadership is rightly subject to criticism. Second, I think Malcolm X figured out part of what was wrong with what he referred to as "so-called Negro leaders" when the FBI tried to recruit him as an informant, and he realized some of those ahead of him in the pecking order were already working for the same handlers, as were the leaders of NOI "enemies."

It is interesting, too, because at one time this type of knowledge would have been more classified as "suppressed" or "hidden" or conspiracy theory, back in the day, but the recruiting session is/was on YouTube.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,708
San Antonio, Tx
Slavery was a factor, I've never said it didn't influence the South. My thesis was that it wasn't the ONLY factor. The tariffs were an on/off issue and an issue that was being discussed at the start of the Lincoln administration. It was a factor for the South.

To answer your question about would there have been a rebellion: Yes, I think there would have been a secession even without slavery. Regionalism and differing opinions about the role of government have shown that secession is possible (the New England region almost seceding because of the 1812 War) and I still think it affects our politics to this day (some say that the US is currently undergoing a cold civil war). Regionalism is a powerful enough factor to cause a rebellion and I think the South was on the path to split with the North whether slavery or not.
Absent slavery, there would have been no reason for the South to secede. Get real.
 
Feb 2011
1,120
Scotland
The documented events of the decade before the civil war are a steadily boiling pot of antagonisms relating overwhelmingly to slavery. Other possible 'root causes' do not appear to figure to any significant degree.

The most telling documents in terms of 'cause' are the Ordinances of secession, in cases where causes are appended.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

These documents are unanimous in declaring the perceived threat to the institution of slavery to be the cause of secession.

McPherson states that it was the Confederacy fighting to retain the original Constitution; the conservative view.
Although the Union also stated initially that it wanted to restore the Union that was, it was the Union that was - by the end- fighting for revolution, for a new USA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiver

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,403
Caribbean
These documents are unanimous in declaring the perceived threat to the institution of slavery to be the cause of secession.
Not quite. It's not just threat in the abstract, but unconstitutional threat - as MacPherson pointed out. Northerners causing insurrection was another perceived threat mentioned in two documents (like John Brown).

Also, your link includes the Virginia Ordinance which is not one of the four "causes" documents per se, and does not cite protecting her institution of slavery as a cause of secession.
 
Last edited: