Good Morning...Congress Postpones Civil War

[Okla-homey]

Mar 3, 1820: Congress passes the Missouri Compromise

190 years ago today, after months of bitter debate, Congress passes the Missouri Compromise, a bill that temporarily resolves the first serious political clash between slavery and antislavery interests in U.S. history.

In February 1819, Representative James Tallmadge of New York introduced a bill that would admit Missouri into the Union as a state where slavery was prohibited. At the time, there were 11 free states and 10 slave states.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1686/missourijamestallmadge.jpg
Rep. James Talmadge (NY)

Southern congressmen feared that the entrance of Missouri as a free state would upset the balance of power between North and South, as the North far outdistanced the South in population, and thus, U.S. representatives. Opponents to the bill also questioned the congressional precedent of prohibiting the expansion of slavery into a territory where slave status was favored.

Even after Alabama was granted statehood in December 1819 with no prohibition on its practice of slavery, Congress remained deadlocked on the issue of Missouri.

Finally, a compromise was reached. On March 3, 1820, Congress passed a bill granting Missouri statehood as a slave state under the condition that slavery was to be forever prohibited in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36th parallel, which runs approximately along the southern border of Missouri. In addition, Maine, formerly part of Massachusetts, was admitted as a free state, thus preserving the balance between Northern and Southern senators.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6711/missouri20compromise20m.jpg

The Missouri Compromise, although criticized by many on both sides of the slavery debate, succeeded in keeping the Union together for more than 30 years. In 1854, it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which dictated that slave or free status was to be decided by popular vote in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska; though both were north of the 36th parallel.

The results of the Missouri Compromise would prove to further long-term tensions regarding slavery while quelling short-term worries. Perhaps most importantly, the compromise delayed a possible armed conflict during the period in which the South may have been able to defeat the North militarily.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6840/missourislavery.gif

In the four decades betwen 1820 and 1860 and the eve of Civil War, the North would develop exponentially more miles of railroad, steel production, modern factories, and population. These advantages would prove decisive in the coming Civil War.

[TUSooner]

Haven't you heard? The War of Northern Aggression was NOT about slavery!

[Okla-homey]

Haven't you heard? The War of Northern Aggression was NOT about slavery!

Only among revisionist history types.:rolleyes:

[SoonerProphet]

Only among revisionist history types.:rolleyes:

heh, the irony of your statement cracks me up.:rolleyes:

both you federal operatives know that the civil war debate involves just as many causes around the whole sectionalist vs. nationalist issue than slavery.

[fadada1]

did sherman ever visit missouri?

TIA

[SoonerProphet]

did sherman ever visit missouri?

TIA

no, that was james lane and his redlegs.:)

[fadada1]

no, that was james lane and his redlegs.:)

ah, my mistake.


:D

[Okla-homey]

heh, the irony of your statement cracks me up.:rolleyes:

both you federal operatives know that the civil war debate involves just as many causes around the whole sectionalist vs. nationalist issue than slavery.

Have you ever taken the time to read the various seceding states "ordinances of seccession" and the records of their conventions?
This from Virginia:


The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitition were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:

This from Alabama:


Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [a/k/a SLAVERY!] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and manacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:


And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,

[SoonerProphet]

Have you ever taken the time to read the various seceding states "ordinances of seccession" and the records of their conventions?
This from Virginia:



This from Alabama:


avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [a/k/a SLAVERY!]

do i see some "revisionist" history here. again, cracks me up.

while i agree slavery is an issue, it is but one in a bundle of concerns regarding the power of the centralizing forces of the fed vs. sectional and regional issues. it is something that goes down in italy and germany a few decades later. right or wrong, the tendancy was towards nationalism and centralization.

[TUSooner]

do i see some "revisionist" history here. again, cracks me up.

while i agree slavery is an issue, it is but one in a bundle of concerns regarding the power of the centralizing forces of the fed vs. sectional and regional issues. it is something that goes down in italy and germany a few decades later. right or wrong, the tendancy was towards nationalism and centralization.

<Civil War discussion. Take 793. Roll 'em!>
Slavery was the predominant issue by far; without it, all the rest of that "bundle of concerns" wouldn't have amounted to a fart in a tornado. They certainly would not have led to secession and war. The revisionism comes from those who feel a need to sift the gleanings of history for post-hoc rationalizations for the war so they can obscure, from themselves primarily, the plain ugly truth: Whatever the virtues of individual southern people, and regardless of any interesting or even compelling legal and political theories about the rights of states in a federal system, the rebellion - and all of the theories themselves - were based first and foremost on the concept that owning the lives and labor of other human beings was a God-given right that a state could and should protect. Take slavery out of the mix and there's no war.

You (the rhetorical you) do not have to embrace utterly fallacious assertions like "it wasn't about slavery" to make intelligent arguments about the rights of states.
<bangs head against brick wall>

[Okla-homey]

<Civil War discussion. Take 793. Roll 'em!>
Slavery was the predominant issue by far; without it, all the rest of that "bundle of cocerns" wouldn't have amounted to a fart in a tornado. They certainly would not have led to secession and war. The revisionism comes from those who feel a need to sift the gleanings of history for post-hoc rationalizations for the war so they can obscure, from themselves primarily, the plain ugly truth: Whatever the virtues of individual southern people, and regardless of any interesting or even compelling legal and political theories about the rights of states in a federal system, the rebellion - and all of the theories themselves - were based on first and foremost on the concept that owning the lives and labor of other human beings was a God-given right that a state could and should protect. Take slavery out of the mix and there's no war.

You (the rhetorical you) do not have to embrace utterly fallacious assertions like "it wasn't about slavery" to make intelligent arguments about the rights of states.
<bangs head against brick wall>

What my brother said. Times a bajillion. spek

[SoonerProphet]

so i assume you two whistle past the proverbial graveyard of northern tariffs, protectionism, and public works projects. if slavery was such an issue, foisting a moral touch on a power grab actually, then why didn't the war start in 1851 or 41, etc? why wasn't the rallying cry for the federals "free the slaves", not "preserve the union", and why the hell did the underground railroad go to canada and not new york? i am sure you are quite aware of the various economic issues leading up to and resulting from the civil war.

charles dickens in a london periodical in december 1861, "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....the quarrel between the north and south is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".

[TUSooner]

so i assume you two whistle past the proverbial graveyard of northern tariffs, protectionism, and public works projects. if slavery was such an issue, foisting a moral touch on a power grab actually, then why didn't the war start in 1851 or 41, etc? why wasn't the rallying cry for the federals "free the slaves", not "preserve the union", and why the hell did the underground railroad go to canada and not new york? i am sure you are quite aware of the various economic issues leading up to and resulting from the civil war.

charles dickens in a london periodical in december 1861, "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....the quarrel between the north and south is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".

You miss the point again. Take away slavery and you may still have regional quarrels, but you don't have a civil war. Slavery was the $100 chip in the game, and you're talking about a handful of pennies. Slavery and money were not separate issues, by the way, and I bet Dickens knew that. Slavery was at the very root of the sectional and cultural divide, and all other concerns were linked in some way to that root. The fact that some individual did or didn't personally go fight to free the slaves in irrelevant. As is the fact fact that northerners were racists. The south seceded because its states wanted to preserve the right to own other people and their labor. You can change the subject, but not the reality.

Why are you people so ****ing obtuse over a point you cannot ever win without lying to yourselves? WHy do you have to go to absurd lengths to deny the obvious? Especially since you do not have to have to degrade yourselves with lame Confederal apologetics in order to argue that states have rights or that secession is constitutional or that the federal government is evil or whatever else. You're only fooling yourselves, and for nothing.

OK, I'm done.

Wait.... One more thng: I think one problem the CSA apologists have is a too-narrow view of slavery. It wasn't just a some moral issue where the North supposedly claimed moral superiority and then went to war to punish the South for its immorality. If that were so, it would be almost plausible to isolate and devalue the slavery issue. (because it would be just a straw man.) But slavery was big. It touched on basically every aspect - economic, moral, cultural, social, commercial, whatever - of Southern life. That's probably the real reason it's so silly to argue that the war wasn't "about" slavery: Slavery affected everything else.

NOW I'm done.

[olevetonahill]

Seems this subject comes up about as much as Poli threads here

Like Ive said
The Rebs LOST
Those Daytum Yankees won
GADOCADWI :D

[SoonerProphet]

You miss the point again. Take away slavery and you may still have regional quarrels, but you don't have a civil war. Slavery was the $100 chip in the game, and you're talking about a handful of pennies. Slavery and money were not separate issues, by the way, and I bet Dickens knew that. Slavery was at the very root of the sectional and cultural divide, and all other concerns were linked in some way to that root. The fact that some individual did or didn't personally go fight to free the slaves in irrelevant. As is the fact fact that northerners were racists. The south seceded because its states wanted to preserve the right to own other people and their labor. You can change the subject, but not the reality.

Why are you people so ****ing obtuse over a point you cannot ever win without lying to yourselves? WHy do you have to go to absurd lengths to deny the obvious? Especially since you do not have to have to degrade yourselves with lame Confederal apologetics in order to argue that states have rights or that secession is constitutional or that the federal government is evil or whatever else. You're only fooling yourselves, and for nothing.

No, I've stated that slavery is a contributing factor in the collapse of the federal system in 1860. Now I am not certain what "Confederal apologetics" are. However, I don't feel the CSA is some kind of moral superior government. The leaders were want to whip up the same type of type of hyberbole as their kin in the North. That is what politics is of course. In my opinion sectionalism was/is a valid argument and can be carried beyond the access to cheap labor.


OK, I'm done.

Wait.... One more thng: I think one problem the CSA apologists have is a too-narrow view of slavery. It wasn't just a some moral issue where the North supposedly claimed moral superiority and then went to war to punish the South for its immorality. If that were so, it would be almost plausible to isolate and devalue the slavery issue. (because it would be just a straw man.) But slavery was big. It touched on basically every aspect - economic, moral, cultural, social, commercial, whatever - of Southern life. That's probably the real reason it's so silly to argue that the war wasn't "about" slavery: Slavery affected everything else.

NOW I'm done.

Meh, still think slavery is ex post facto and I fail to see why it did not start earlier or why slavery didn't tear other nations apart. I think the mercantilist economic policy of the 1860 Republican Party was a deal breaker and an unkown, not just because of slavery. The Nullifaction Crisis and tariffs played a significant role in secession because it would of destroyed their economy, not just slavery.

[Okla-homey]

Look. I get why the South fought mightily to defend its right to own humans. It's much cheaper than paying humans to do the same work.

When your entire economy is based on cheap labor, when that source of cheap labor dries-up, you fail. Or move off-shore. Unfortunately, when you entire economy is based on cheap labor on your dirt, working with incredibly labor intensive crops like cotton and tobacco, you can't take that off-shore.

Large scale cotton farming was only profitable in an era before the internal combustion engine because land was cheap, taxes were low, and labor costs were only the food slaves ate, the huts you made them build for themselves and the rags you gave them to wear.

And I also get the fact most folks in the seceding states didn't own slaves. Most white folks in the South were poor crackers. However, said crackers relied on the money put in circulation by the plantation aristocracy to feed their families. It really was a feudal society in most respects. A few Lords, a few tradesmen who comprised the tiny middle-class and lots of serfs (both black and white).

Thus, in the end, even non-slaveholding Southerners relied on a slavery for their daily bread -- except for the hillbillies of course. That's frankly why said hillbillies in West Virginia hauled off and seceded from Confederate Virginia and re-joined the union.

Hill folk in eastern Tennessee were'nt too enamored of the Cornfederacy either. Lincoln's second VP, Andrew Johnson, was one of those loyal east Tennessee hillbillies.

[TUSooner]

Meh, still think slavery is ex post facto and I fail to see why it did not start earlier or why slavery didn't tear other nations apart. I think the mercantilist economic policy of the 1860 Republican Party was a deal breaker and an unkown, not just because of slavery. The Nullifaction Crisis and tariffs played a significant role in secession because it would of destroyed their economy, not just slavery.

Read Homey's post: The effects of slavery were all-pervasive. It was part of the "organism" of the South. Every crisis you can mention has slavery at the root because slavery was essential to everything concerning the South, especially its economy.


I fail to see why it did not start earlier or why slavery didn't tear other nations apart.

This is a red herring. It didn't start earlier because only idiots and loonies wanted a war. They were held back by politics for awhile - until the South thought slavery was in real danger. See the Original Post.

I don't know what "other nations" you mean, but I venture to say that none prized their slave labor as much as the American "drivers of Negroes" (in Dr.Johnson's words).

If the South had given up slavery sooner (like say, in 1789, or even when Britain did, or any time before 185?), do you really think we would have had a Civil War?

[SoonerProphet]

My main point is this then I'll shut up about it.

The tariff issue proved a more devisive one than slavery. The Nullification Crisis and "Tariff of Abominations" contributed more the the growing rift than slavery. The south relied heavily on manufactured goods, especially from the brits. Tariffs, combined with increased immigration and industrialization, led to real fears in the South that they would be outnumbered by "yankee industrialists". Did slavery contribute this economic situation, of course, but other factors played a role pushing the South towards secession.