States Rights?

[Againsheila]

I have a hard time understanding why this point is so hard for people to understand. It's beacuse the South was fighting to preserve slavery, but the North was fight to keep the union together. When the North decided slavery was the reason the south was fighting they decided to end it. Slavery supported the divisions in the nation, it had to end sooner rather then--as Lincoln would have had it ideally in 1860--later.

Again, why were the slaves in the north not freed until AFTER the civil war? Why were they exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation? The answer is that the war was not about slavery, not for the north, nor for the south. However, many in the north did go to war to fight for the freedom of the slaves as the union touted the war being about slavery.

Had the south succeeded and won the war, slavery would have been over in less than 40 years anyway. Only 5% of the population owned slaves, do you really think all those soldiers in the south were fighting so the plantation owners could keep their slaves? Did you know that there were black slave owners as well?

In fact, if you see an African American decended from slaves walking down the street next to a white American, chances are much, much greater, that the black man is more likely to be decended from slave owners than the white man.

 

[Againsheila]

Actually there were 5, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri. Then there were areas like southern Illinois, where Lincoln was none too popular.

He was careful to declare 'free' only slaves in states that were claiming to be out of the Union, and not throw any border states into the Confederacy.

Interesting factoid...Deleware was the first AND the last state to outlaw slavery.

 

[PeterS]

The South wasn't happy with the idea of 'containment' that is what you are failing to understand. They wanted new lands for their cash crops, they wanted to maintain their way of life and were losing the ability to sustain the argument in the House. Their choice for secession was entirely rational.

Rational? They were trying to sustain a fully immoral way of life--one predicated on forced labor and the surrender of freedom of others. Their action was rational only if you consider the principles upon which this country was founded irrational.

 

[Annie]

Rational? They were trying to sustain a fully immoral way of life--one predicated on forced labor and the surrender of freedom of others. Their action was rational only if you consider the principles upon which this country was founded irrational.

I'm not arguing against the abolishment of slavery. I'm trying to give the South's pov in the mid-1800's. C'mon folks, follow along.

 

[PeterS]

Again, why were the slaves in the north not freed until AFTER the civil war? Why were they exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation? The answer is that the war was not about slavery, not for the north, nor for the south.

You're wrong. Being pragmatic about that an action doesn't make an endorsement of an action. Reagan was pragmatic towards Saddam Hussein with respect to WMD and WMD were the reason we invaded invaded Iraq. Our approach to slavery was always one of pragmatism but do not misconstrue that as an embrace of it. Take away slavery and there would never have been a civil war therefore so say the civil war was not about slavery is simply a denial of the truth.

 

[Annie]

You're wrong. Being pragmatic about that an action doesn't make an endorsement of an action. Reagan was pragmatic towards Saddam Hussein with respect to WMD and WMD were the reason we invaded invaded Iraq. Our approach to slavery was always one of pragmatism but do not misconstrue that as an embrace of it. Take away slavery and there would never have been a civil war therefore so say the civil war was not about slavery is simply a denial of the truth.

Reagan?

 

[Gunny]

I don't think you understand what was going on in the 1860 election. The north in no way was telling the South what they could do about slavery in the states where it existed. The North simply wanted to stop the spread of slavery and was opposed to the inclusion of a pro-slavery Kansa into the Union because the pro-slavery settlers in Kansas hated fradulently elected a pro-slavery legislature there. How in the world "states Rights" becasme the South's fighting principle is a testament to the power of propaganda

The balance of power in Congress at that time was based on an equal number of free states vs slave states. There also was the issue of an industrial north vs an agricultural South. The north wanted high import export tariffs to force Americans to buy their goods, while the South wanted low tariffs since they made their big haul importing and exporting cotton to Europe. Whichever side had an advantage would be making the rules.

Again, the issue of whether or not state's rights superceded Federal authority was a key issue. Slavery was just one of the issues. It was not the sole reason the war was fought.

Abolitionists were a tiny group of do-gooders. Most Northerners didn't give a crap. That is until the industrialists realized that taking slavery away from the South was the key to breaking its economic back. THEN they cared. While running their sweatshops 16 hours a day and making immigrants beholden to the company store; therefore, unable to leave without being thrown in jail.

That's not slavery. It's ... ummm ... a job?

 

[Luissa]

Again, why were the slaves in the north not freed until AFTER the civil war? Why were they exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation? The answer is that the war was not about slavery, not for the north, nor for the south. However, many in the north did go to war to fight for the freedom of the slaves as the union touted the war being about slavery.

Had the south succeeded and won the war, slavery would have been over in less than 40 years anyway. Only 5% of the population owned slaves, do you really think all those soldiers in the south were fighting so the plantation owners could keep their slaves? Did you know that there were black slave owners as well?

In fact, if you see an African American decended from slaves walking down the street next to a white American, chances are much, much greater, that the black man is more likely to be decended from slave owners than the white man.

Actually the slaves were free in the north long before the war, and there were things like the Missouri Compromise that had to do with states entering the union because there were free and slave states!
And as for plantation owners they would have never gotten rid of slavery on their own, places like South Carolina are not ideal for working in the summer.

 

[Annie]

The balance of power in Congress at that time was based on an equal number of free states vs slave states. There also was the issue of an industrial north vs an agricultural South. The north wanted high import export tariffs to force Americans to buy their goods, while the South wanted low tariffs since they made their big haul importing and exporting cotton to Europe. Whichever side had an advantage would be making the rules.

Again, the issue of whether or not state's rights superceded Federal authority was a key issue. Slavery was just one of the issues. It was not the sole reason the war was fought.

Abolitionists were a tiny group of do-gooders. Most Northerners didn't give a crap. That is until the industrialists realized that taking slavery away from the South was the key to breaking its economic back. THEN they cared. While running their sweatshops 16 hours a day and making immigrants beholden to the company store; therefore, unable to leave without being thrown in jail.

That's not slavery. It's ... ummm ... a job?

Best post of the thread!

 

[Luissa]

I have a hard time understanding why this point is so hard for people to understand. It's beacuse the South was fighting to preserve slavery, but the North was fight to keep the union together. When the North decided slavery was the reason the south was fighting they decided to end it. Slavery supported the divisions in the nation, it had to end sooner rather then--as Lincoln would have had it ideally in 1860--later.

Plus the north suspended trading and then hired tariffs on trading with England and with cotton supporting the south along with a few other crops they were beginning to loose their shirt. Then there was the fact that cotton gins were manufactored in the north and the cotton was grown in the south.
They were holding it together for along time but men like Calhoun died who wanted the south to stay apart of the union!

 

[PeterS]

Reagan?

Gay rights?

 

[Orange_Juice]

1) Again, why were the slaves in the north not freed until AFTER the civil war? Why were they exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation? The answer is that the war was not about slavery, not for the north, nor for the south. However, many in the north did go to war to fight for the freedom of the slaves as the union touted the war being about slavery.

2) Had the south succeeded and won the war, slavery would have been over in less than 40 years anyway. Only 5% of the population owned slaves, do you really think all those soldiers in the south were fighting so the plantation owners could keep their slaves? Did you know that there were black slave owners as well?

3) In fact, if you see an African American decended from slaves walking down the street next to a white American, chances are much, much greater, that the black man is more likely to be decended from slave owners than the white man.

1) Wrong. South seceeded and started the war because they were afraid slavery wasn't safe in the union. That some border states had slavery proves nothing

2) Maybe, maybe not. That's counter factual history, which seems to be right up your make believe way.

3) What?

 

[Gunny]

But why did the seceed? The "right" is one thing, but what caused them to take the step to do it? Sure as hell wasn't anything the North did to violate states rights

Depends on how you want to look at it. As I said, Congress was equally represented by slave and non-slave states. Whichever way the President rolled was the deciding factor. Lincoln was against the further spread of slavery. That meant no new slave states, no equal balance of power.

The Southern states saw that as disadvantageous to their individual and collective efforts. We really were already 2 nations living under one roof. Southern states saw it as more advantageous to disassociate themselves from the Federal government.

The issue of states rights is not an issue of a violation per se ... but of Southern states believing states had the right to trump any Federal action they did not agree with, such as the Tariff Act previously mentioned.

Secession was not a new issue. A couple of New England states threatened to secede in the early 1800s. I want to say Delaware was one, and Connecticut or Vermont the other. It wasn't just a Southern idea.

 

[Luissa]

The balance of power in Congress at that time was based on an equal number of free states vs slave states. There also was the issue of an industrial north vs an agricultural South. The north wanted high import export tariffs to force Americans to buy their goods, while the South wanted low tariffs since they made their big haul importing and exporting cotton to Europe. Whichever side had an advantage would be making the rules.

Again, the issue of whether or not state's rights superceded Federal authority was a key issue. Slavery was just one of the issues. It was not the sole reason the war was fought.

Abolitionists were a tiny group of do-gooders. Most Northerners didn't give a crap. That is until the industrialists realized that taking slavery away from the South was the key to breaking its economic back. THEN they cared. While running their sweatshops 16 hours a day and making immigrants beholden to the company store; therefore, unable to leave without being thrown in jail.

That's not slavery. It's ... ummm ... a job?

And we have the civil war to thank for less state rights, prime example read the amendments after the civil war and what they say at the end!

 

[Annie]

Gay rights?

So you're a troll.

My response of 'Reagan' was to your post #25:

You're wrong. Being pragmatic about that an action doesn't make an endorsement of an action. Reagan was pragmatic towards Saddam Hussein with respect to WMD and WMD were the reason we invaded invaded Iraq. Our approach to slavery was always one of pragmatism but do not misconstrue that as an embrace of it. Take away slavery and there would never have been a civil war therefore so say the civil war was not about slavery is simply a denial of the truth.

 

[Orange_Juice]

The balance of power in Congress at that time was based on an equal number of free states vs slave states. There also was the issue of an industrial north vs an agricultural South. The north wanted high import export tariffs to force Americans to buy their goods, while the South wanted low tariffs since they made their big haul importing and exporting cotton to Europe. Whichever side had an advantage would be making the rules.

Again, the issue of whether or not state's rights superceded Federal authority was a key issue. Slavery was just one of the issues. It was not the sole reason the war was fought.

Abolitionists were a tiny group of do-gooders. Most Northerners didn't give a crap. That is until the industrialists realized that taking slavery away from the South was the key to breaking its economic back. THEN they cared. While running their sweatshops 16 hours a day and making immigrants beholden to the company store; therefore, unable to leave without being thrown in jail.

That's not slavery. It's ... ummm ... a job?

Slavery was far and away the key issue. While abolitionist were a small minority, the free soilers were a majority. Lincoln was a free soilers. The South wanted more slave states and was going to cheat and kill to get it. Just look at the fiasco they created in Kansas. They also wanted Cuba.

If States rights was such a big deal, why did the South scream and howl to high heaven for a Federal Fugitive Slave law and declare they would leave the Union if the Federal Government didn't force the Northern states to do more to hunt down and kidnap people in the North? I bet you won't answer this question

 

[Gunny]

Oh, I understand. They wanted to spread slavery far and wide. Pretty evil if you ask me.

Except that slavery was pretty-much geographically contained by the outbreak of the war. It just wasn't practical west of central Texas nor on the Plains. Yes, there were exceptions, but individual ones. There were no plantations in El Paso. You don't need slaves to cultivate tumbleweeds and cactus.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Depends on how you want to look at it. As I said, Congress was equally represented by slave and non-slave states. Whichever way the President rolled was the deciding factor. Lincoln was against the further spread of slavery. That meant no new slave states, no equal balance of power.

The Southern states saw that as disadvantageous to their individual and collective efforts. We really were already 2 nations living under one roof. Southern states saw it as more advantageous to disassociate themselves from the Federal government.

The issue of states rights is not an issue of a violation per se ... but of Southern states believing states had the right to trump any Federal action they did not agree with, such as the Tariff Act previously mentioned.

Secession was not a new issue. A couple of New England states threatened to secede in the early 1800s. I want to say Delaware was one, and Connecticut or Vermont the other. It wasn't just a Southern idea.

No, they only discussed it but never threatened anyone.

But you seem to be saying slavery was main issue now. Balance between slave and free states, when the North was gaining more power, the slave states wanted to leave because of the interests of slave states. Slavery in your own analysis is the main issue

 

[Gunny]

I have a hard time understanding why this point is so hard for people to understand. It's beacuse the South was fighting to preserve slavery, but the North was fight to keep the union together. When the North decided slavery was the reason the south was fighting they decided to end it. Slavery supported the divisions in the nation, it had to end sooner rather then--as Lincoln would have had it ideally in 1860--later.

That is incorrect. Lincoln declared slaves in states in rebellion free as a military tactic. If those slaves rebelled, it would pull troops off the line to guard the home front.

The slaves in border states and the North were not freed until after the war and Licoln was dead.

The division in this nation was the balance of power in the Federal government. Slaves or no, the South was not going to willingly put itself at the mercy of northern industrial states that would legislate in their own favor.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Except that slavery was pretty-much geographically contained by the outbreak of the war. It just wasn't practical west of central Texas nor on the Plains. Yes, there were exceptions, but individual ones. There were no plantations in El Paso. You don't need slaves to cultivate tumbleweeds and cactus.

Then why was the South so intent on moving it to Kansas? Also, there was Central America and Cuba, and yes the south wanted them. Ever hear of the Ostend Manifesto?