He's responding to us as we speak... WELL- HAVE FUN WITH THAT, HAP.

con·tem·po·rar·y

[kuhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/...una/thinsp.pngn-tem-puh-rer-ee] adjective, noun,plural-rar·ies.
–adjective 1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

I will assume you mean a document from the time period - and not a modern one.

Quote:

If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel

published in the English Magazine: All the Year Round, December 28, 1861 edition (Dickens/Morley)

Perhaps the relevant portion of the historical speech of one Robert Barnwell Rhett - a US Senator who resigned his seat and spoke at the South Carolina convention will do?

Quote:

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

How about the Georgia Secession document?

Quote:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

Yes - I am fully in agreement that slavery was a major cause. But to claim that other economic factors - like the proposed Morrill Tariff - had no impact - after the history of the Tariff of Abomination and the following Nullification Crisis, is to blindly insist that every confederate soldier was thus willing to fight and die for the property of the rich neighbor - since not every soldier owned slaves.

It was Richard Hofstadter who in the 1950's asserted that slavery was the only real issue - up to that time it was accepted that slavery, other economic issues (such as tariffs), states rights, and inequal representation were all real factors. So I am guessing you guys learned your history in the 50's and 60's when his views were predominant? It should be noted that modern historians are now more in agreement with Charles Beard - who in the 1920's asserted that tariffs played a large role in the war starting.

Historical records show that it was not just slavery. But your likely quoting what you were taught. I don't fault you for that - and steve, I was not meaning to talk down to you. I simply think that you guys are locked in on something without a willingness to look at the full picture. I can name a number of modern, respected historians that would also concur with my stance, based of the vast records we have.

Was Slavery a major issue? Yes

But there was more to it than JUST that. More than just slavery is mentioned in just about every single document or speech related to the question from the time period. What more do you need?

Slavery was at the root of everything. It's wasn't A major cause, it was THE major cause.

Taxation? The South was less industrial—poor. If the Northern States wanted more taxation on the South to catch up with their newfound industrial wealth (and hence tax load), it was related to... slavery. The South remained agrarian because with the cotton gin, slavery allowed an agrarian economy to trump industrialization.

No matter what you do, slavery is at the very heart of the question, it informed every decision Southern leaders made, even if implicitly, not explicitly.

The argument that it was "state's rights" because otherwise they'd have been allowed to leave is false. It's like saying the cause of a death was blood loss, and neglecting that the patient had been shot.

Very good finds. This is probably what UnderseaLCPL was looking for on the other thread.

Just so you understand me, I'm a firm believer in truth. I've always known that the Civil War, like any war, had many causes behind it. My irritation started with the aftermath of the Ken Burns documentary, when a huge number of, as I call them, 'Southern Apologists', started ranting that everyone needed to be educated to the 'fact' that "It wasn't about slavery!" I like a scholarly discussion of reasons and causes, with evidence given, and with this latest post you've done that. I apologize if I've lumped you in with those others, but you have to admit that they are a problem.

As for the reason soldiers signed up to fight, of course Southern soldiers weren't fighting to protect slavery, nor were Northern soldiers fighting to stop it. Soldiers fight for what they are told, and that is always that the enemy is trying to destroy their way of life. That is the only reason anyone joins the rank-and-file army - to protect what's theirs against an evil enemy.

Quote:

Historical records show that it was not just slavery. But your likely quoting what you were taught.

I hope I've relieved you of that opinion. I grew up in California, where I was taught practically no history at all. On the other hand I have a friend who spent one of his high school years in Georgia, where, in his words, "The first week of American History was spent discussing the events leading up to the Civil War. The last week was about everything that's happened since."

He also like to quote his history teacher as an example of what he was told at the time: "Some of you seem to think that I believe Robert E. Lee was the greatest man ever to walk the face of this earth. This is not true. Remember that our Lord Jesus Christ also walked the face of this earth."

Quote:

I simply think that you guys are locked in on something without a willingness to look at the full picture. I can name a number of modern, respected historians that would also concur with my stance, based of the vast records we have.

And I believed the same about you, based on my experience with the vast majority of people who take the attitude that slavery was less than the most important issue. They, as I have said, mostly seem to want it to not be an issue at all. They will blame everything on Lincoln, and call it "Lincoln's War", even though they started seceeding when the abolitionist party took power.

Quote:

Was Slavery a major issue? Yes

By now you should know that I agree, and I don't need any more. My only beef is with those who say slavery was not the main issue, or not an issue at all. The other problem, though, is identifying who actually believes what, and who is trying to accomplish what. How do I know that you aren't giving ground and playing nice scholar just to bend things the way you want them to go. Before that causes offense, I'll say that I don't believe that. I don't disbelieve it either, just the same as I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. My point in saying that is that I have that exact problem with the original topic of this thread. These people are not to be trusted, no matter what they say.

And just so you know, I feel the same about the liberal factions in this country as well. My bottom line is always "I don't know". But I don't trust people who claim they do, either.

No apology necessary - you have been civil the whole time, and if I "talked down" to you, I regret it - it was not my conscious intent. If those people that claim that "It wasn't about slavery!" would actually ADD to that statement, they would be right - "It wasn't JUST about slavery". The 40+ years of tariffs that were seen as punitave by the South had created a truly sectional country, and it was the nullification crisis of 1832 that first raised the spectre of secession, states rights and the consideration of the use of Federal force to enforce the authority of the Federal government in a State. To say that the issue of tariffs had created significant and deep "bad blood" between the North and South is historically supported.

Quote:

How do I know that you aren't giving ground and playing nice scholar just to bend things the way you want them to go.

Every good debate creates a bit of learning. I learned a bit from the last thread on the discussion - and that informs my thinking. I guess the easiest way to describe my view on the issue is this - there was a rather complex history that predates the civil war itself. In essence, that history created a powder keg - filled with the powder created by distrust over tariffs, differences of opinion on States rights, as well as the social and economic reality (and fear of abolition) of slavery. The lighting of the fuse was the final year preceding the election of Lincoln. When Lincoln was president, the fuse hit the powder. At that point, it was too late to stop the explosion. The reality is that the move to start the war however was major idiocy by South Carolina and the pro-slavery political movement (not because the South lost). I will start a new thread on that one if it deserves enough discussion.

I will say that the secession began with Lincoln's election, before he ever took office, which does add to the slavery indictment.

But...the shooting started over what most shooting starts over - land. If President Davis and Governor Pickens had said "Okay, you keep that fort out in our harbor. We'll even make money selling them supplies", there wouldn't have been much Lincoln could have done about it. After all, in his inaugural speech he had said flat-out that he wouldn't fire the first shot. Of course he was too canny and they were too gullible and hotheaded for them to think of that possibility, so they fired the first shot and Lincoln got his war. I'm not condemning him for that - he felt that the Union had to be preserved at all costs.

On the other hand, the colonials managed to wait until the British fired the first shot, so they were sure they had the moral high ground. After all the complaints from 1763 to 1774, the taxes and opressions, the first shot of the Revolution was fired over the question of...Gun Control!:arrgh!:

Well Steve - your right. But had the SC hotheads thought for just a minute - the blowing of the powder keg could have been averted. The fear was that with an "abolitionist" president, it was only a matter of time before abolition was law. However, the reality was that abolition would have taken MASSIVE amounts of time and money to make happen - and there was no good way for the North to push for it.

Sure, they had a moral stance - but lets play hypotheticals for a moment here - even if Congress passed (with the South fighting tooth and nail against it) an abolition law, and Lincoln had signed it, what would the slaves have done? The Federal government would have suddenly mandated what would have amounted to a humanitarian crises on a scale never seen before at that time. Every former slave - free - but without any possessions, money, education or ability to secure the necessities of life. Combined with the existant power structure in the Southern states, it isn't hard to see that the suddenly freed slave would have little to no hope of long term survival - meaning the North would create a situation where it would be inundated with all the freed slaves - a refugee crisis. That would have been the last thing the North would have wanted.

Unfortunately, with the 40+ years of "north vs south" interest butting heads, the politico's had made a cardinal mistake. They believed their own rhetoric - that if the "abolitionist" was elected president, it would be the "straw that broke the camel's back. And so, when Lincoln was elected, they jumped without even thinking about the reality of the situation.

Another block to instant abolition would have been Jefferson's Conundrum. Some modern folks like to accuse TJ of being two-faced and hypocritical, but the reality was that he was conflicted. He wanted at various times to free the slaves in Virginia, but even with his own slaves he realized that most of them had no real skills. The law in Virginia was that any freed slave had to leave the state within one year. Jefferson recognized that his "people" could very well starve, as they had no qualifications for jobs in the North and no plantation owner was going to hire someone to the job his own "people" could do for free.

It was the same in 1860. Freeing the slaves was a noble idea, but they all had to be trained to do other jobs, or the owners had to be trained to pay the workers for the effort they were getting for nothing; plus the landholders would have to be recompensed for lost labor, just to stay competetive with their northern counterparts. In short, it was going to take time. Lincoln was willing to spend that time and effort, if for no other reason than to keep the economy stable.

What it really would have taken was for everyone to sit down and discuss things rationally, and that almost never happens - even here.:sunny:

Jefferson believed that with the rebellions in Haiti things had gone to far; there could be no emancipation in America without either repatriation to Africa or a Black vs White civil war.

Agree with the politics or not, I think Tom and Abe would have both cheered the 2008 election, just for what it meant to their own histories.

Very educational post.
I learned quite a-bit here.