The Confederate battle flag

[Dyakovo]

They actually fought a war for their independence from a government they no longer believed in, which was supported by precedence four score and seven years before.

And the primary drive for their lack of support in the federal government was they thought their way of life (i.e. owning slaves) was being threatened.

Ftfy
It actually wasn't being threatened.

[Farnhamia]

Those previous engagements were mostly about slavery as well. Bloody Kansas, for instance.

Andrew Jackson invaded the southern state of South Carolina during his presidency concerning tariffs and taxes. Not concerning slavery.

Of course not, Jackson was a large slave-owner himself, what did he care about overturning slavery? And he didn't send troops to South Carolina. He threatened to do so but it proved unnecessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Sure, and the Nazi flag was not exclusively used as a symbol of anti-Semitism.

The swastika has been used for centuries prior to WW2 as a symbol of peace.

Which means that it's arguably less of a symbol of hate than the stars and bars, which had its origins as the symbol of those fighting to own slaves. Still wouldn't want to fly it and try to argue its meaning with the neighbors, though.

[Dynasty of Dalliances]

Those previous engagements were mostly about slavery as well. Bloody Kansas, for instance.

Andrew Jackson invaded the southern state of South Carolina during his presidency concerning tariffs and taxes. Not concerning slavery.

Assuming you're talking about the Nullification Crisis, I don't think I've ever seen anything about an actual invasion being used. Source?

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Those points are all minor things, irrelevant to the important part. The part where he says "everything we stand for is built around owning other humans" (paraphrased slightly)

[Farnhamia]

Andrew Jackson invaded the southern state of South Carolina during his presidency concerning tariffs and taxes. Not concerning slavery.

Assuming you're talking about the Nullification Crisis, I don't think I've ever seen anything about an actual invasion being used. Source?

There wasn't one but I wouldn't put it past him had no compromise been reached. And he was right. The Union is a government, not a league. You don't get to walk out when you don't like the way things are playing out.

[Llamalandia]

Very well allow me then to quote from Cornerstone as well:

Seems pretty clear that the speech was as much about trade and tarriff and taxation as it was about the "peculiar southern institution of African slavery".

That's "alluding to some of the improvements". Those were certainly present, yes. However, "African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." That makes it the most important thing. That makes it the cause. The corner stone, one could say. One DID say, as a matter of fact.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
That's bold, clear speech from one of the founders of the csa saying that it was, for all intents and purpose, founded because the north was threatening slavery as an institution, and also the new federal government had fewer tariffs. I don't see how much clearer it could be, really.

And how many northerner at that time consider the white man and the "negro" to be equals? Hmm?

I mean lets face it as pointed out earlier Lincoln was willing to the throw slaves under the bus had it been a viable means of preserving the union. It's important to point out the motives of both sides in war.

So yeah was slavery the Main driver and not merely "proverbial straw" ? Sure. Was it the only significant grievance of the south? Not by a long shot.

[Genivaria]

Assuming you're talking about the Nullification Crisis, I don't think I've ever seen anything about an actual invasion being used. Source?

There wasn't one but I wouldn't put it past him had no compromise been reached. And he was right. The Union is a government, not a league. You don't get to walk out when you don't like the way things are playing out.

Answering a democratic election with violence is something that should've been left in the ashheap of history alongside absolute monarchies, but it seems some men value owning people as property more then democracy.

[-The West Coast-]

Assuming you're talking about the Nullification Crisis, I don't think I've ever seen anything about an actual invasion being used. Source?

There wasn't one but I wouldn't put it past him had no compromise been reached. And he was right. The Union is a government, not a league. You don't get to walk out when you don't like the way things are playing out.

You actually do get to walk out, that's what the Union doesn't understand. If the USA could walk out of the British crown in the name of independence and freedom from tyranny, I don't see why the Southern states couldn't do it and cite the same reasons.

[Farnhamia]

That's "alluding to some of the improvements". Those were certainly present, yes. However, "African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." That makes it the most important thing. That makes it the cause. The corner stone, one could say. One DID say, as a matter of fact.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
That's bold, clear speech from one of the founders of the csa saying that it was, for all intents and purpose, founded because the north was threatening slavery as an institution, and also the new federal government had fewer tariffs. I don't see how much clearer it could be, really.

And how many northerner at that time consider the white man and the "negro" to be equals? Hmm?

I mean lets face it as pointed out earlier Lincoln was willing to the throw slaves under the bus had it been a viable means of preserving the union. It's important to point out the motives of both sides in war.

So yeah was slavery the Main driver and not merely "proverbial straw" ? Sure. Was it the only significant grievance of the south? Not by a long shot.

That's not the point. The beliefs of Northerners in general or Abraham Lincoln in particular about Negroes does not disprove the fact that the Confederacy was created to preserve slavery within its borders.

[Getrektistan]

Those previous engagements were mostly about slavery as well. Bloody Kansas, for instance.

Andrew Jackson invaded the southern state of South Carolina during his presidency concerning tariffs and taxes. Not concerning slavery.

It was concerning nullification more than it was tariffs and taxes. Jackson himself said that the tariffs were a mere pretext. Nullification, too, was primarily concerned with slavery.

And there was no actual 'invasion'.

[Dyakovo]

Those previous engagements were mostly about slavery as well. Bloody Kansas, for instance.

Andrew Jackson invaded the southern state of South Carolina during his presidency concerning tariffs and taxes. Not concerning slavery.

Impossible.

[Revanchism]

Those previous engagements were mostly about slavery as well. Bloody Kansas, for instance.

Andrew Jackson enforced the law within the southern state of South Carolina during his presidency concerning tariffs and taxes. Not concerning slavery.

Right. And you know why that was? Oh yes, because South Carolina declared that the Tariff of 1828 was unconstitutional and decided not to play nice because their boy Jackson didn't go along with their plans.
What's funny is, while SC(And not even all of SC; there was significant disagreement among the population) got its panties in a twist, Jackson tried to compromise with the 1832 tariff, which also passed with half the southern vote. Still, SC thought it was special and didn't have to play by the rules.
And after Jackson enforced the tariff(With approval he got from Congress via the Force Bill, by the way), you know what he did? Tried to reach a compromise that was even more agreeable to southerners with the 1833 tariff.
So I really, really doubt that most southerners would have any "bad taste" in their mouths from that. Outside of some in South Carolina, of course.

[Genivaria]

There wasn't one but I wouldn't put it past him had no compromise been reached. And he was right. The Union is a government, not a league. You don't get to walk out when you don't like the way things are playing out.

You actually do get to walk out, that's what the Union doesn't understand. If the USA could walk out of the British crown in the name of independence and freedom from tyranny, I don't see why the Southern states couldn't do it and cite the same reasons.

The South did not have taxation without representation no.

[Llamalandia]

Those points are all minor things, irrelevant to the important part. The part where he says "everything we stand for is built around owning other humans" (paraphrased slightly)

If they are such minor points the. Why devote so much time speaking on them? I acknowledge that the plurality cause of the civil war is no doubt the slavery question but that was not the only major concern of the south. I mean after all what's the point of even having slaves if you're going to be killed economically by the tarriffs?

[-The West Coast-]

You actually do get to walk out, that's what the Union doesn't understand. If the USA could walk out of the British crown in the name of independence and freedom from tyranny, I don't see why the Southern states couldn't do it and cite the same reasons.

The South did not have taxation without representation no.

I said in that same post the USA left in the name of freedom from tyranny not from taxation without representation. Does anyone read people's posts nowadays?

[Dyakovo]

Sure, and the Nazi flag was not exclusively used as a symbol of anti-Semitism.

The swastika has been used for centuries prior to WW2 as a symbol of peace.

You'll note he said "nazi flag" not "swastika".

[-The West Coast-]

The swastika has been used for centuries prior to WW2 as a symbol of peace.

You'll note he said "nazi flag" not "swastika".

You'll note further that the "nazi flag" was the "swastika".

[Genivaria]

The South did not have taxation without representation no.

I said in that same post the USA left in the name of freedom from tyranny not from taxation without representation. Does anyone read people's posts nowadays?

No they didn't. They betrayed democratic ideals to preserve slavery, that is fact. No matter what revisionists might say.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's "alluding to some of the improvements". Those were certainly present, yes. However, "African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." That makes it the most important thing. That makes it the cause. The corner stone, one could say. One DID say, as a matter of fact.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
That's bold, clear speech from one of the founders of the csa saying that it was, for all intents and purpose, founded because the north was threatening slavery as an institution, and also the new federal government had fewer tariffs. I don't see how much clearer it could be, really.

And how many northerner at that time consider the white man and the "negro" to be equals? Hmm?

I mean lets face it as pointed out earlier Lincoln was willing to the throw slaves under the bus had it been a viable means of preserving the union. It's important to point out the motives of both sides in war.

So yeah was slavery the Main driver and not merely "proverbial straw" ? Sure. Was it the only significant grievance of the south? Not by a long shot.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that Lincoln went to war to free the slaves, or that he was particularly enlightened for his time (though his views did change with exposure to former slaves such as Fredrick Douglass). His main intention to preserve the Union. The overwhelming motivation for the South to attempt to dissolve the Union, however, was their fear that their right to own slaves would be infringed upon.

[Dynasty of Dalliances]

There wasn't one but I wouldn't put it past him had no compromise been reached. And he was right. The Union is a government, not a league. You don't get to walk out when you don't like the way things are playing out.

You actually do get to walk out, that's what the Union doesn't understand. If the USA could walk out of the British crown in the name of independence and freedom from tyranny, I don't see why the Southern states couldn't do it and cite the same reasons.

The tyranny of not being allowed to own other human beings? Or some other kind?

[Farnhamia]

There wasn't one but I wouldn't put it past him had no compromise been reached. And he was right. The Union is a government, not a league. You don't get to walk out when you don't like the way things are playing out.

You actually do get to walk out, that's what the Union doesn't understand. If the USA could walk out of the British crown in the name of independence and freedom from tyranny, I don't see why the Southern states couldn't do it and cite the same reasons.

Mainly because they agreed to not one but two perpetual Unions, the Articles of the Confederacy USA and the one created under the Constitution, which made the first "more perfect." And just because the men of 1860 didn't sign those agreements does not mean they were not bound by them. The South was perfectly happy to play ball as long as they were in charge of running the game. As soon as things began to change they were all up in arms, persecuted, oppressed. Hell, if they had freed the slaves and made them citizens they would have been able to control Congress for decades.

Oh, and the Southerners weren't being treated like second-class citizens by the North. They had all their rights, something the men of the Revolution felt were being denied them as British citizens.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

That's "alluding to some of the improvements". Those were certainly present, yes. However, "African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." That makes it the most important thing. That makes it the cause. The corner stone, one could say. One DID say, as a matter of fact.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
That's bold, clear speech from one of the founders of the csa saying that it was, for all intents and purpose, founded because the north was threatening slavery as an institution, and also the new federal government had fewer tariffs. I don't see how much clearer it could be, really.

And how many northerner at that time consider the white man and the "negro" to be equals? Hmm?

I mean lets face it as pointed out earlier Lincoln was willing to the throw slaves under the bus had it been a viable means of preserving the union. It's important to point out the motives of both sides in war.

So yeah was slavery the Main driver and not merely "proverbial straw" ? Sure. Was it the only significant grievance of the south? Not by a long shot.

And not once did I say it was, sorry if it seemed I did.

[Getrektistan]

.

[Llamalandia]

And how many northerner at that time consider the white man and the "negro" to be equals? Hmm?

I mean lets face it as pointed out earlier Lincoln was willing to the throw slaves under the bus had it been a viable means of preserving the union. It's important to point out the motives of both sides in war.

So yeah was slavery the Main driver and not merely "proverbial straw" ? Sure. Was it the only significant grievance of the south? Not by a long shot.

That's not the point. The beliefs of Northerners in general or Abraham Lincoln in particular about Negroes does not disprove the fact that the Confederacy was created to preserve slavery within its borders.

True but it does to to the question of what the war was about. And it was clearly about more than just slavery for both the north and the south. That's what my point was.