Confederacy not as bad?

[GHook93]

Clear as a cloudy day, perhaps. Yes, slavery was certainly a part of their reason for leaving the Union, but you can't ignore the role that tariffs played either.

In every war there are dozens of underlining causes, but the preservation of the union was the main cause of the Civil War and the main cause of the succession was slavery.

You do know that there was an attempt back during the formation of the country after the revolutionary war to end slavery. The abolutionist movement was alive and well as far back as 1750. HOWEVER, the country just went through a civil war and was in its infancy. It was not ready for an internal conflict, so it settled on a compromise. That compromise was the Northwest Ordinance!

For one to even begin to argue that Fed's abolishing of slavery infringed on the 10th amendment, first does not understand the 10th amendment and 2nd doesn't understand the 5th amendment.

For one to argue that slavery was not a leading cause of the war, doesn't understand the effect the Dred Scott Case had on history or how prevalent the abolutionary movement was in the North (not saying the North didn't have their prejuidices against the Blacks)!

Well the abolitionist movement in the north was not very prevalent, to be honest. As to abolishing slavery being an infringement on the 10th amendment, nobody has made that claim. However, not allowing the states to secede is an infringement of constitutional rights.

Take some law classes before you proclaim yourself a master of the constitution. Otherwise you just look like a fool!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In every war there are dozens of underlining causes, but the preservation of the union was the main cause of the Civil War and the main cause of the succession was slavery.

You do know that there was an attempt back during the formation of the country after the revolutionary war to end slavery. The abolutionist movement was alive and well as far back as 1750. HOWEVER, the country just went through a civil war and was in its infancy. It was not ready for an internal conflict, so it settled on a compromise. That compromise was the Northwest Ordinance!

For one to even begin to argue that Fed's abolishing of slavery infringed on the 10th amendment, first does not understand the 10th amendment and 2nd doesn't understand the 5th amendment.

For one to argue that slavery was not a leading cause of the war, doesn't understand the effect the Dred Scott Case had on history or how prevalent the abolutionary movement was in the North (not saying the North didn't have their prejuidices against the Blacks)!

Well the abolitionist movement in the north was not very prevalent, to be honest. As to abolishing slavery being an infringement on the 10th amendment, nobody has made that claim. However, not allowing the states to secede is an infringement of constitutional rights.

Take some law classes before you proclaim yourself a master of the constitution. Otherwise you just look like a fool!

I've never claimed to be a "master of the Constitution." However, I am able to read and since the 10th Amendment claims all powers not granted to the federal government or prohibited to the state governments belong to the states or to the people it is to be assumed that secession is clearly constitutional.

 

[Meemer]

I must jump in here before my eyes go bad---this thread is growing so fast.

Cause of War: expansion of slavery into the territories (see Kansas/Nebraska for ex.)

Lincoln mulled over the Emancipation for many, many months. The mental conflict was fighting a war to stop the spread of slavery, yet not ending slavery for those people and granting them freedom. A conundrum.

Slavery was becoming economically infeasible, thus the need to spread to new lands in the SW and Plains territories for fresh soil.

Labor in the North did fear the freed slaves as competition for jobs. They would fight to stop expansion and to end secession but they were not fighting to free blacks.

Our Constitution provides no manner I'm aware of for seceding once a territory has committed to becoming a state. As for WV, those former counties of VA, to their minds, never really left the Union = their acceptance as a state and not as a seceded state from another state.

I noticed McPherson mentioned. It would pay many of you to read this man's Civil War books. Also Bruce Catton's books on the Civil War.

Someone stated the South did not need the North! With one major iron factory the South didn't need the industry of the North?
Another thing, getting back to the concept of North-good; South-bad. I was never taught that and never thought that---being a Northerner. Personally I think the South was short-minded. 1860 was a bumper cotton crop year. The British warehouses were bulging. Seceding and precipitating a war and thinking European, primarily British aid would come a'runni' was naive. No source of money, very few major industries, 100s of miles less railroads. My view is "My way or no way" commanded Southern thinking. The bulk of the population had no slaves, thus slavery was not the cause. The expansion of slavery was a major cause, as were the tariffs. But tariffs had been lowered prior to the outbreak of hostilities. For me the cause of the American Civil War was arrogance.