Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If secession were successful then introduction of crop harvesting machinery after the civil war surely would have made the incentive for slavery moot because business, north and south, would have embraced it as more productive thus more profitable.
That should mean that the slave trade from Africa would dry up and those slaves residing in the south would begin to pass from the scene without substantial reproduction being permitted.
A separate South would soon become more industrialized as it eventually did in the middle part of the twentieth century assuming an amicable relationship between the Union and the Confederacy. What slaves remained would be largely confined to domestic work or other labor intensive projects.
The black population in the non-slave states would continue to expand somewhat as second class citizens and likely migrate to the west and joined by runaway slaves from the new machine based Confederacy. The slave owners would be glad to see them go as their upkeep expense is not longer necessary. Older slaves would serve as domestics and be replaced by the vacuum cleaner and other "labor saving" devices.
What a different world we would live in if John Deere had come on the scene sooner.
I noticed a debate about the civil war and I only read the first post in which the poster stated the war was fought over taxes. Which is pure balderdash and revisionist history peddled by various organizations in order to legitimize their cause.
The fact is tariffs and taxes played little part if any in the reasoning behind the secession of the slave states. A tariff authored by a Southerner actually passed in 1857 and was hence known as the Tariff of 1857. The South found this very advantageous and this negates the argument that tariffs played any significant role in the secession of the slave states from the Union. In fact it was such a minor factor that South Carolina voted against mentioning it in their Ordinance of Secession. So that myth can be put to bed.
Another myth is the states rights myth. One can only argue this position knowing full well that the South was a huge proponent of suppressing states rights when it interfered with the institution of slavery. One can only say the states rights argument must be meant in the context of protecting the states rights to chattel slavery and the imposition of laws that made this secure in perpetuity.
The facts are the South left the union for two reasons. One was the perceived threat to chattel slavery with the election of a party that favored abolition and white supremacy by a party they referred to as "black Republicans". If one does any research at all, just a little research, you can read the words of the secessionist commissioners sent out to various legislative bodies throughout the South to spread to give reasons for secession. These men did not allude to unjust taxes, instead they explicitly referred to the threat of the white race to "amalgamation and equality with the inferior negro race", the spoke of the "unimaginable horrors upon our women" if the "black republicans" came to power to give "equality to negroes".
This fear was hammered home repeatedly and it was unmistakably clear, secede from the union or to be forced to live with the black race on equal terms, which was simply unthinkable. This along with their reliance on chattel slavery and the threat to this "peculiar institution" were the factors that caused the South to leave the Union.
I dare anyone to read the words of Ordinances of Secession for southern States and the words of the commissioners of secession and deny that white supremacy and chattel slavery were the reasoning behind secession.
No, he is 100% correct. Slavery was about white supremecy, and it continued into the post civil war era up to the 1960's with Jim Crow laws. And no, the north was not much better on the subject either.
You make a common argument that is wrong. Just because we argue the South fought for white supremecy doesn't mean the north fought for a more nobel goal. The South was afraid of slavery ultimate demise, but most northerners were not abolitionist. The South fear of racial equality led them to harm the entire country through disunion which the north would not allow. See how there is a difference? Two different war aims for north and south.
It seems apparent that editec is the only person with reading and comprehension abilities.
*sigh*
Gunny, nothing Ive posted has been debunked if you have evidence to the contrary I would ask you to post it instead of going of on a childish rant because of your sympahty for traitors and scum that fought for white supremacy and chattel slavery. Im sure youve raised your whole life steeped in revisionist history and pray at the Stone Mountain to the alter of your heroes. This no doubt has clouded your judgement.
And Ive never said the motives for the North, Ive only stated the motives for secession for the South. This isnt really open for debate as Ordinances of Secession and the words of secession commissioners clearly outlay their agenda. You cant revise history and omit the very documents that are record.
Sadly, it appears you have no real game here. Just the accusation that no one understands. The usual cop-out deflection of the wannabe elitist.
Your entire argument has been thrashed so many times goats can't find anything left to eat of it. Do a little research, newbie, before allowing your alligator mouth to overload your bumblebee ass. The threads are on THIS board.
You can't revise history by omitting all but the facts you want to use to make your argument. Nobody gave a shit about slavery except as a means to an end for the powerful and elite on both sides. It was a means of wealth and power to the South, and a means to destroy that wealth and power to the North.
That white supremacy and slavery were THE causes of the Civil War is just revissionist bullshit. If the Southern elite had trained monkeys to work their fields, they'd have used them, and when attacked for using them, would have defended them. Amazing how you wannabe intellectual elites can't see past your own noses.
Exactly, slavery just happened to be the the issue that put states rights in jeopardy. IT could have veen any other thing in which the North was trying to take away. The North was attempting to forbid something that was Legal according to the Constitution. Also, the North invaded the Southern land after the South legally seceded from the Union. Granted, it's a good thing the North won, and we now have the society we have, but Northern Propogandic history is not necessarily the right history.
It's funny how many posters will be quick to criticize the U.S. Government about it's "lies" and how it brainwashes its people, but then turn around and forget that the same thing was certainly possible in 1865. SCOTUS ruled the Southern secession to be illegal....however, they ruled in favor of separate but equal...
What's "funny" is the very same people who whine and bitch about Bush's war of aggression, blah, blah, blah ... and bitch and whine about any real or perceived infringement on their Constitutional Rights defend Lincoln's trampling of the Constitution and war of aggression where might made right, with a lameass Supreme Court ruling 3 years after the fact justifying teh US's actions.
To the victor goes the spoils, AND the tailoring of history to support their actions.
Sadly, it appears you have no real game here. Just the accusation that no one understands. The usual cop-out deflection of the wannabe elitist.
Your entire argument has been thrashed so many times goats can't find anything left to eat of it. Do a little research, newbie, before allowing your alligator mouth to overload your bumblebee ass. The threads are on THIS board.
You can't revise history by omitting all but the facts you want to use to make your argument. Nobody gave a shit about slavery except as a means to an end for the powerful and elite on both sides. It was a means of wealth and power to the South, and a means to destroy that wealth and power to the North.
That white supremacy and slavery were THE causes of the Civil War is just revissionist bullshit. If the Southern elite had trained monkeys to work their fields, they'd have used them, and when attacked for using them, would have defended them. Amazing how you wannabe intellectual elites can't see past your own noses.
What's "funny" is the very same people who whine and bitch about Bush's war of aggression, blah, blah, blah ... and bitch and whine about any real or perceived infringement on their Constitutional Rights defend Lincoln's trampling of the Constitution and war of aggression where might made right, with a lameass Supreme Court ruling 3 years after the fact justifying teh US's actions.
To the victor goes the spoils, AND the tailoring of history to support their actions.
It's boggles the mind to think that you would compare our invasion of Iraq on the other side of the world to a domestic insurection that tore OUR nation apart. What type of drugs are you on???
Your argument is wrong. The South didn't need slavery for its economy, they could have simply of paid people to work. But what slavery did was allow for white supremecy to be enforced as strongly as possible. And the South surely didn't need slavery in the territories, where they were complaining the most about it. In fact, it probably wouldn't have been viable in Kansas and other places. The south threatened to breakl up the union many times over slavery in the territories even though it would have been possible there.
The South did not invent slavery, nor did invent slavery trade. In fact, the Southern United States had a minimal amount of slaves in comparison to other nations that owned slaves.
What do you suggest the Southern slave-owners pay their "workers" with? I hate to tell you, but the money trail led northward, not the otherway around. Let's not also forget that slavery was not illegal--even in the North. Northern people hated blacks just as much as Southern people did. They may not have wanted them to be slaves, but they surely intended on keeping them separate.
Once again, The Civil War was fought over states-rights, not slavery. Slavery was an underlying issue. It's funny that neither country went to war until the North failed to leave southern lands after the South seceded.
States rights? What state right had the north violated that made the South declare independence?
Why did the south threaten to seceed if a Federal Law, the Fugitive Slave Law, was not passed by Congress and signed by the President? How in the world is that a states rights issue?
Why did the South threaten secession if a Free Soil President was elected? Restricting slavery in the territories didn't interfere with slavery in the southern states
Furthermore, the South did not secede because a specific state right had been violated. The North Violated the Constitution numerous times by not returning slaves that had escaped, and also creating slavery uprisings in the South (I.E. Harpers Ferry).
If you'll take a stroll down history lane, you'll notice that both sides did not go to war until the North refused to give up Fort Sumter (which was on South Carolina property-land. The South used their state right to secede from the Union. (<---review the 10th Amendment) The North apparently figured that the states did not have the RIGHT to secede from the Union. When South Carolina seceded, all lands of South Carolina were considered South Carolina--and no longer apart of the United States. The North refused to leave South Carolina after numerous requests and warnings. <----that's what kicked off the Civil War.
So to answer your questions--the North violated the South's right (according to the Constitution) to secede from the Union. It was a states' rights issue...and slavery happened to be a factor. Had a president been elected that abolished firearms, there would have been the same result.
Try again. The Northern powerbrokers wanted to control the government as did the Southern ones. They could not control the government so long as the states entered as one free state and one slave state. The Northerners could give a shit less about slaves, or who owned them beyond the fact that it was a means of attacking the base of Southern power. Without slaves, Southerners had no means to cultivate their fields on the level they were, and their power would have vanished with their money. As it did.
White supremacy is about white supremacy and slavery was a result of the Anglo-Eurpoean belief that whites were superior to blacks (white supremacy). The US, and the South, did NOT invent slavery, nor did it invent white supremacy.
The Southern elite were afraid of change more than the actual demise of slavery itself. They were making money hand over fist and the North threatened their wealth and power. Had someone come along with a quick, painless fix that made slavery obsolete, those slaves would have been dumped on the road faster than Lee's surrender made it happen.
I am not making any common argument that is wrong. You say that; yet, turn around and reiterate what I said.
There was no fear of racial equality. That's just flat-out stupid. The fear was loss of wealth and power by the wealthy and powerful.
What I see is that there was no legislation at the time to preclude secession as freely as states entered the Union. Legally, they had every right to ditch an "experiment" as a failed one.
Only by force of arms and an after-the-fact, based-on-nothing-but-assumption ruling by the Supreme Court is/was the North "right."
In other words, the South wanted to go its own way and the North refused to allow it do so. Blaming it on some "fear of racial equality" which didn't exist in anyone's minds at that time is bogus. The fear was loss of wealth and power, and at least equal power in the US government.
It's boggles the mind to think that you would compare our invasion of Iraq on the other side of the world to a domestic insurection that tore OUR nation apart. What type of drugs are you on???
Exactly, slavery just happened to be the the issue that put states rights in jeopardy. IT could have veen any other thing in which the North was trying to take away. The North was attempting to forbid something that was Legal according to the Constitution. Also, the North invaded the Southern land after the South legally seceded from the Union. Granted, it's a good thing the North won, and we now have the society we have, but Northern Propogandic history is not necessarily the right history.
It's funny how many posters will be quick to criticize the U.S. Government about it's "lies" and how it brainwashes its people, but then turn around and forget that the same thing was certainly possible in 1865. SCOTUS ruled the Southern secession to be illegal....however, they ruled in favor of separate but equal...
Your argument is wrong. The South didn't need slavery for its economy, they could have simply of paid people to work. But what slavery did was allow for white supremecy to be enforced as strongly as possible. And the South surely didn't need slavery in the territories, where they were complaining the most about it. In fact, it probably wouldn't have been viable in Kansas and other places. The south threatened to breakl up the union many times over slavery in the territories even though it would have been possible there.
A few FYIs:
Harper's Ferry was John Brown's uprising and while he was an abolitionist, he wasn't a slave.
Second, you won't get far citing the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court ended a potentially interesting line of cases adding gloss and strength to the tenth amendment in the late 1800s or early 1900s. The last word from the Supreme Court on the 10th Amendment was that it is an unenforceable truism.
Third, in Texas v. White, 1868, the Supreme Court found no right for a state to unilaterally secede from the Union. Further, it found no right for the National government to expel a state. The court said, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."
So, while on its face the Constitution appears to have provisions which will permit secession, the Supreme Court says the right does not exist.
This is of little moment though because if states want to secede, the legal niceties will little matter. The union will be enforced as it was attempted to be in Georgia, by force of arms. Likewise, secession if it is to succeed, will succeed by force of arms. The legality of such a move justified by its success.
