South Started Civil War Over Slavery

[Orange_Juice]

Depends on your definition of "start." Did the South fire the first shot? Yes. To eject US military forces from South Carolina. Was the South the aggressor that declared war? No.

Did the North bring about events in government deemed unacceptable by the Southern states that precipitated their secession? Yes.
The South believed that the "experiment" called the United States no longer suited its best interest nor need, and believed they had every right to leave as freely as they entered and NO legislation at the time precluded such.

On the premise that the South did NOT have that right, the US militarily invaded the states declared "in rebellion."

There are lies here alright. I agree with that. What I'm sure we don't agree on is who is doing the lying.

Wanna share what those "events" were?

 

[Orange_Juice]

Hmm..."The South Started the Civil War Over Slavery"

Let's disect this shall we.

WRONG.

Granted, it is a fact that slavery "happened" to be the issue in which the confrontation arose. But, the issue was soley or even remotely about slavery. It could have been any other thing. Had the feds decided to take everyone's guns away, it could have been that. For the South, it was about STATE'S RIGHTS.

Let's first keep in mind that slavery was LEGAL in the North until 1865. That means both sides, North & South fought the entire Civil War over something that was LEGAL? Hard to believe.

The Civil War was fought over succession of Southern states and the attempt of the North to preserve the Union. We had a rather large and long thread about this a while back..

The fact is, this will never be settled. The South believes it had the right to succeed. Based on the 10th Amendment. Considering the 10th gives states the right to excercise powers not delegated to the U.S. gov. and not prohibited to the states, the South viewed the succession as legal. The North, however, did not, and believed it was their duty to preserve the Union.

The Civil War was fought over States Rights....apparently, state's rights that the Fed didn't believed the state had. It was not fought over slavery. IT makes one wonder, that if the South had not suceeded, would there have ever been a war?

You guys do not know your own country's history. How do I go about address the gross ignorance and myths surrouding this subject? Where to begin???

1) Slavery was not legal in New York and many other Northern states. I am from New York and know my states history, Alexander Hamilton led the fight to outlaw it here early on and gone long before the Civil War. That's why the South declared they would destroy the Frederal Union--our country--if they didn't get a stronger anti-states rights law to hunt down fugitive slaves


2) I guess that takes us to the "States Rights Argument." Can you read the part above this? If not, states rights was largely about "Slavery's Rights," except when the South wanted Federal Marshalls to hunt down people they claimed were fugitives. The South hated state laws like Personal Liberety Laws

3) And just to let you yahoots in on a secret, the slavery in question was the slavery in the territories that the south wanted to destroy the country over. Bleeding Kansa anyone?

 

[dilloduck]

You guys do not know your own country's history. How do I go about address the gross ignorance and myths surrouding this subject? Where to begin???

1) Slavery was not legal in New York and many other Northern states. I am from New York and know my states history, Alexander Hamilton led the fight to outlaw it here early on and gone long before the Civil War. That's why the South declared they would destroy the Frederal Union--our country--if they didn't get a stronger anti-states rights law to hunt down fugitive slaves


2) I guess that takes us to the "States Rights Argument." Can you read the part above this? If not, states rights was largely about "Slavery's Rights," except when the South wanted Federal Marshalls to hunt down people they claimed were fugitives. The South hated state laws like Personal Liberety Laws

3) And just to let you yahoots in on a secret, the slavery in question was the slavery in the territories that the south wanted to destroy the country over. Bleeding Kansa anyone?

The south seceded. They didn't ask for war.

 

[Annie]

The south seceded. They didn't ask for war.

Funny, shooting on Fort Sumpter sure seemed like an act of war.

 

[dilloduck]

Funny, shooting on Fort Sumpter sure seemed like an act of war.

And they took other Union Forts in THEIR territory too. Why was the north attempting to resupply it, buying weapons and training militia units?

 

[Annie]

And they took other Union Forts in THEIR territory too. Why was the north attempting to resupply it, buying weapons and training militia units?

The first shots were fired by which side? The Union forts were just that. Sorry, but the Southern states may have petitioned for secession individually, but it would have taken Congress to overturn their status in the Union.

In any case, the South lost.

 

[dilloduck]

The first shots were fired by which side? The Union forts were just that. Sorry, but the Southern states may have petitioned for secession individually, but it would have taken Congress to overturn their status in the Union.

In any case, the South lost.

No shit sherlock.

The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States.

Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BrianH]

You guys do not know your own country's history. How do I go about address the gross ignorance and myths surrouding this subject? Where to begin???

1) Slavery was not legal in New York and many other Northern states. I am from New York and know my states history, Alexander Hamilton led the fight to outlaw it here early on and gone long before the Civil War. That's why the South declared they would destroy the Frederal Union--our country--if they didn't get a stronger anti-states rights law to hunt down fugitive slaves


2) I guess that takes us to the "States Rights Argument." Can you read the part above this? If not, states rights was largely about "Slavery's Rights," except when the South wanted Federal Marshalls to hunt down people they claimed were fugitives. The South hated state laws like Personal Liberety Laws

3) And just to let you yahoots in on a secret, the slavery in question was the slavery in the territories that the south wanted to destroy the country over. Bleeding Kansa anyone?

If this were over guns it would have been the same. Slavery was an "UNDERLYING" issue. I've seen turds like you before that have been fed northern propaganda and still believe the South wants slaves.

First, I'll address you're whole New York slavery issue. It was New York's STATE RIGHT to outlaw slavery...not the Constitution or federal law. Slavery was not illegal...according to the CONSTITUTION until 1865. I hate to break it to you, but New York was not the only northern state that fought for the Union.

The Civil War was fought between the Union and the Confederation of Southern States...both of which legalized slavery according to their Constitutions and or majority state laws. Slavery was outlawed by the 13th Amendment. The state right of New York citizens to outlaw slavlery in their own state does not affect nor have any accountability on any other state.

Anyway you take your argument, it goes back to state's rights. The Constitution of the United States did not outlaw slavery. It also did not grant slavery as a power to the Federal Government. Accorrding to the 10th Amendment, the states reserved the power to either outlaw or legalize slavery. And as far as the South was concerned, considering the Constitution of the United States makes no mention (whatsoever) of succession, the South (and many today) believe that the power was granted to the states by the 10th Amendment as well. If it doesn't grant the power to the federal government, nor prohibit it to the states, the power is reserved to the state. In the Constitution that existed in 1861, the right to seceed was not prohibited by the Constitution, nor was it delegated to federal government. By the way, the 10th Amend. is in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Any way you cut your cake, or drink your OJ, it goes back to states right. Sure, slavery was an underlying issue. But had this been about any other legal practice, the outcome would have been the same. Slavery was LEGAL according to the Constitution, and New York state law only restricted New Yorkers....

Don't lecture about learning history dude, you've got your hand in the cookie jar on this one.

 

[BrianH]

I would question the Idea that slavery was legal in the North until 1865, many northern states had state laws outlawing slavery well before 1865.

The real hot button issue was actually about expansion of slavery into the new territories.

True enough, but I'm talking about the Consitution and federal law. Had any Northern state wanted to start owning slaves, they could have legally...according to the Const.

 

[Annie]

No shit sherlock.


Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whoop de doo genius. The Union wasn't acquiescing to the 'demands' for secession, though they were trying to settle it without bloodshed, the South wasn't having any.

They thought they could 'resign', they were wrong. They lost.

 

[BrianH]

Want to look even stupider? Say it was THE reason for the US Civil War.

Except for the small minority of abolishonists. Northerners didn't give a rat's ass about blacks nor slavery. Attacking slavery was a means to attack Southern powerbrokers at their base. Take away slaves and you take away the means of Southern money, influence and political power.

The Civil War was fought for control of the US Government by two regional power factions in order to maintain and/or introduce legislation that favored their different means of making money, industry vs agriculture.

Different on the surface. The only difference between Southern slavery and Northern sweatshops was at least the South was just honest about it and called it what it was. The South enslaved blacks while the North took Europena immigrants, made them beholden to the company store with a debt they had no hope of repaying and either th ewhole family attempted to work it off 16 hours a day for the company or they got tossed in debtor's prison.

Nice, that.

So you can take your attempt to attribute some lofty goal to typical US imperialistic aggression and stick it. Slavery was just a means to an end for both sides. A base of wealth and power for the South, and a means to destroy that base of wealth and power for the North.

Exactly....

Orange Juice....

"Douglass's recruitment speeches promised black soldiers equality in the Union army, unfortunately they were not treated equally. They were paid 1/2 of what the white soldiers received and were given inferior weapons and inadequate training. Blacks were not allowed to become officers. "

The Civil War Years - The Fight For Emancipation

 

[Orange_Juice]

If this were over guns it would have been the same. Slavery was an "UNDERLYING" issue. I've seen turds like you before that have been fed northern propaganda and still believe the South wants slaves.

First, I'll address you're whole New York slavery issue. It was New York's STATE RIGHT to outlaw slavery...not the Constitution or federal law. Slavery was not illegal...according to the CONSTITUTION until 1865. I hate to break it to you, but New York was not the only northern state that fought for the Union.

The Civil War was fought between the Union and the Confederation of Southern States...both of which legalized slavery according to their Constitutions and or majority state laws. Slavery was outlawed by the 13th Amendment. The state right of New York citizens to outlaw slavlery in their own state does not affect nor have any accountability on any other state.

Anyway you take your argument, it goes back to state's rights. The Constitution of the United States did not outlaw slavery. It also did not grant slavery as a power to the Federal Government. Accorrding to the 10th Amendment, the states reserved the power to either outlaw or legalize slavery. And as far as the South was concerned, considering the Constitution of the United States makes no mention (whatsoever) of succession, the South (and many today) believe that the power was granted to the states by the 10th Amendment as well. If it doesn't grant the power to the federal government, nor prohibit it to the states, the power is reserved to the state. In the Constitution that existed in 1861, the right to seceed was not prohibited by the Constitution, nor was it delegated to federal government. By the way, the 10th Amend. is in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Any way you cut your cake, or drink your OJ, it goes back to states right. Sure, slavery was an underlying issue. But had this been about any other legal practice, the outcome would have been the same. Slavery was LEGAL according to the Constitution, and New York state law only restricted New Yorkers....

Don't lecture about learning history dude, you've got your hand in the cookie jar on this one.

I've already addressed the states right's issue, it went right over your head.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Whoop de doo genius. The Union wasn't acquiescing to the 'demands' for secession, though they were trying to settle it without bloodshed, the South wasn't having any.

They thought they could 'resign', they were wrong. They lost.

The real question is: why did the South, and South Carolina in particular, feel they needed to commence hostilities?

The answer is that Lincoln's patience and lack of aggressive action was allowing for tempers in the south to cool and the air was escaping out of the secession balloon. Virginia would never have left the Union without a war, and the South couldn't have survived without Virginia. The hotheads in South Carolina needed the war so they started it

 

[editec]

Depends on your definition of "start." Did the South fire the first shot? Yes.

Okay, good so far.

To eject US military forces from South Carolina. Was the South the aggressor that declared war? No.

And no you're off into apology land. to eject Federal forces? You mean to rebel against the Republic?

Did the North bring about events in government deemed unacceptable by the Southern states that precipitated their secession? Yes.

Name one. The Republic has not outlawed slavery.

The South believed that the "experiment" called the United States no longer suited its best interest nor need, and believed they had every right to leave as freely as they entered and NO legislation at the time precluded such.

DEspite the existence of the Federalist papers which very clearly stated that the republic was being created in perpituity, you mean?

On the premise that the South did NOT have that right, the US militarily invaded the states declared "in rebellion."

Yes, that is true.

There are lies here alright. I agree with that. What I'm sure we don't agree on is who is doing the lying.

Well, we could start with you hypothesis that slavery in the existing states was under serious threat of being outlawed by the Republic, for one.

Can you show me any law in place at the time which you think supports that unreasonable fear?

 

[Orange_Juice]

Want to look even stupider? Say it was THE reason for the US Civil War.

Except for the small minority of abolishonists. Northerners didn't give a rat's ass about blacks nor slavery. Attacking slavery was a means to attack Southern powerbrokers at their base. Take away slaves and you take away the means of Southern money, influence and political power.
.

Not true at all. The issue was not slavery in the South, but would slavery spread west into the territories. Read up a little on Bleeding Kansas, the Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850. The abolitionists were not the force behind the North's push to restrict slaverys spread, the Free Soliers like Lincoln and Seward were. Drive by history buffs only know about the abolitionists, but the real movers and shakers at the time were the Free Soilers

 

[Orange_Juice]

Okay, good so far.






Name one. The Republic has not outlawed slavery.

I can't wait to see him explain this one!

 

[editec]

You guys do not know your own country's history. How do I go about address the gross ignorance and myths surrouding this subject? Where to begin???

1) Slavery was not legal in New York and many other Northern states. I am from New York and know my states history, Alexander Hamilton led the fight to outlaw it here early on and gone long before the Civil War. That's why the South declared they would destroy the Frederal Union--our country--if they didn't get a stronger anti-states rights law to hunt down fugitive slaves

I know some of it, I think.

source

In 1799 the Legislature passed "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery" with only token opposition. It provided for gradual manumission on the Pennsylvania model, which allowed masters to keep their younger slaves in bondage for their most productive years, to recoup their investment. The law freed all children born to slave women after July 4, 1799, but not at once. The males became free at 28, the females at 25. Till then, they would be the property of the mother's master. Slaves already in servitude before July 4, 1799, remained slaves for life, though they were reclassified as "indentured servants." The law sidestepped all question of legal and civil rights, thus avoiding the objections that had blocked the earlier bill. The activity of kidnappers and cheats in selling slaves out of the state in spite of the laws fostered the 1817 statute that gave freedom to New York slaves who had been born before July 4, 1799 -- but not until July 4, 1827. Slavery was still not entirely repealed in the state, because the new law offered an exception, allowing nonresidents to enter New York with slaves for up to nine months, and allowing part-time residents to bring their slaves into the state temporarily. Though few took advantage of it, the "nine-months law" remained on the books until its repeal in 1841, when slavery had become the focus of sectional rivalry and the North was re-defining itself as the "free" region.

2) I guess that takes us to the "States Rights Argument." Can you read the part above this? If not, states rights was largely about "Slavery's Rights," except when the South wanted Federal Marshalls to hunt down people they claimed were fugitives. The South hated state laws like Personal Liberety Laws

Yeah, amusing how selectively those Slave States were about demanding state's rights, isn't it? That's because states rights really wasn't really an issue back then regardless of how many people insist it was, now.

Not that the whole State's Rights issue was a big deal to them at the time. This argument/apology is largely a relatively new revision of history to whitewash the venal reasons for the Southern cause.

source

The Missouri Supreme Court routinely held that voluntary transportation of slaves into free states, with the intent of residing there permanently or definitely, automatically made them free. The Fugitive Slave Law dealt with slaves who went into free states without their master's consent. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), that states did not have to proffer aid in the hunting or recapture of slaves, greatly weakening the law of 1793.

In the response to the weakening of the original fugitive slave act, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made any Federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. Law-enforcement officials everywhere now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus for their work. Slave owners only needed to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture an escaped slave. Since any suspected slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being conscripted into slavery as they had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations

As you can see, the Republic was bending over backwards to compromise on this issue.

3) And just to let you yahoots in on a secret, the slavery in question was the slavery in the territories that the south wanted to destroy the country over. Bleeding Kansa anyone?

Yes!

What the south was REALLY concerned with was being allowed to bring that particular insitution into the western territories.

Their fear, was that if new free states were created, they'd lose their balance of power in Congress.

Their paranoia really all started out with the ordinance of 1787 which marked the Northwest territories as free.

"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

This rebellion was a war over slavery. The southern cause had no other interest in taking this drastic action than slavery.

They knew, quite rightly, that if slavery was outlawed in the states where it already existed, that would bankrupt their economy.

They also know, that if free states were brought into the Republic, and slaves states weren't, it was probably that at some point slavery would be outlawed in the slave states.

They reckoned, that the time to strike out as an independent confderation of slave states was sooner, rather than later.

Every other issue that the apolgists for the rebellion will bring forth are very minor issues, none of which were significant enough reason for the Southern cause to have taken up arms.

Most of those issues existed for the entire period of the Republic without causing much stir in the South.

 

[Gungnir]

The land wasn't the government's to give.

When the Federal Army occupied the land as part of a war, it most certainly was the government's to give away.

The South got off extremely light. I can't see why they were readmitted into the Union as equal states instead of subjugates.

 

[Orange_Juice]

I know some of it, I think.

source





Yeah, amusing how selectively those Slave States were about demanding state's rights, isn't it? That's because states rights really wasn't really an issue back then regardless of how many people insist it was, now.

Not that the whole State's Rights issue was a big deal to them at the time. This argument/apology is largely a relatively new revision of history to whitewash the venal reasons for the Southern cause.

source



As you can see, the Republic was bending over backwards to compromise on this issue.




Yes!

What the south was REALLY concerned with was being allowed to bring that particular insitution into the western territories.

Their fear, was that if new free states were created, they'd lose their balance of power in Congress.

Their paranoia really all started out with the ordinance of 1787 which marked the Northwest territories as free.

"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

This rebellion was a war over slavery. The southern cause had no other interest in taking this drastic action than slavery.

They knew, quite rightly, that if slavery was outlawed in the states where it already existed, that would bankrupt their economy.

They also know, that if free states were brought into the Republic, and slaves states weren't, it was probably that at some point slavery would be outlawed in the slave states.

They reckoned, that the time to strike out as an independent confderation of slave states was sooner, rather than later.

Every other issue that the apolgists for the rebellion will bring forth are very minor issues, none of which were significant enough reason for the Southern cause to have taken up arms.

Most of those issues existed for the entire period of the Republic without causing much stir in the South.

You got it!

 

[BrianH]

I've already addressed the states right's issue, it went right over your head.

Nothing went over my head dumbass. Nothing is going into yours, except the nonsense you already believe.

Fist off, I'll address your perversion of state's rights. The Southern representation in Congress was already outnumbered and in large part, unrepresented compared to it's population and role in the economy.

As far as Southern "hostility", when the South seceeded from the Union, all lands within their boundaries, including previous federal forts, became Southern terriroty. It was the North's choice not to give up land---that no longer belonged to them...get it??

Considering the United States Constitution (in 1861) did not delegate the power of secession to the federal government, nor prohibit it to the states, the power of secession rested with the states. As soon as the South exercised their right, obtained by the constitution, the lands within their borders belonged to them. The Union refused to leave Fort Sumter despite NUMEROUS requests and warnings. The land that Fort Sumter sat on did not belong to the North as soon as South Carolina seceeded.

This war was fought over states rights. Slavery was an underlying issue...pure and simple. For those of you who complain about revisionist history, take a trip down the history brick road and remember who won the Civil War--hence, who wrote the history.