States Rights?

[Orange_Juice]

1) 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.

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

3) 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.

1) Yet they were free forever, as Lincoln intended

2) Freeing them in the South meant slavery everywhere was doomed. That's why Lincoln attempted to buy freedom for all border state slaves in 1862

3) Yet, when slavery ended, so did the secession. When was the last attempt at secession?

 

[Gunny]

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.

Big-picture wise, racial equality is relatively young and new. What you call immoral was not considered immoral by all at the time. You have to make your argument in context with the time.

To someone born on a plantation in the South, slavery was just a part of life every bit as much as someone born in Rome in 100 BC.

Working in a northern sweatshop was forced labor and the surrender of freedom. That continued long after the Civil War. Why? Because it wasn't called what in practice it actually was.

 

[editec]

"We seceded for states rights" ​

just sounded ever so much noble more than:

" We seceded so we could spread the social disease of slavery into the territories"​

 

[Gunny]

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.

Incorrect assumption. The regional differences and balance of power STILL would have existed without slavery.

To say the civil war was solely about slavery is simply a denial of the truth. You prefer to eat that "Noble North and moral cause" crap because in your 21st century mind, the end justified the means and you have sucked down a bunch of revisionist history.

The war was about power and money. The same shit all wars are fought over.

 

[Gunny]

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?

Actually, it is you who are wrong. The South seceded because it was going to lose at least a stalemate in the Federal government. Any laws favoring an industrial North at the expense of the agricultural South were just as much a threat as the fear of losing its slaves.

 

[Gunny]

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!

The fed has wiped its butt with the Constitution ever since.

 

[Annie]

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!

Agreed. The South made 'states' rights' an issue and they lost the war. It's been downhill since then. If slavery had been 'the issue', state's right's might still be viable. But what was, was.

 

[Gunny]

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

It was AN issue. A key issue. Not THE key issue.

The South did not want more slaves. What were they going to do with them? Have them pick tumbleweeds?

You seem to be missing the key issue. They were not going to meekly accept a minority representation in Congress. IT WAS to their disadvantage economically for northern industrialists to control Congress.

Won't answer what question? Why some rich, greedy powerful politicians were hypocrites? You can't answer it either and we STILL have them. Why do any politicians armtwist to get what is in their best interest? usually it's because they owe their jobs to the wealthy people that are responsible for putting them in their position.

 

[Gunny]

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

They threatened to secede.

I am not saying slavery is the main issue. Unlike you, I'm not saying anyone single issue was "the" issue. I'm saying there were several main issues of which slavery was only one.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

I disagree. Lincoln was elected without a single vote from a southern state, was the last last straw in a long line of judgements against the south and lack of representation for the south. Do you actually believe that the average southerner was fighting just so the richest 5% of them could continue to have slaves?

Slavery was indeed part of the decision but only in as much as the north was not representing the south or it's interests. Again 4 (I'm now told 5) slave holding states remained with the north during the civil war. Their slaves were not freed until AFTER the civil war. To claim that slavery is the cause of the civil war is simplistic and illogical.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Actually, it is you who are wrong. The South seceded because it was going to lose at least a stalemate in the Federal government. Any laws favoring an industrial North at the expense of the agricultural South were just as much a threat as the fear of losing its slaves.

Slavery was the reason. "Industrialisation" in the North wasn't that all far along. Hell, the North west was mostly agricultural iteslf and they joined the free states

 

[Orange_Juice]

It was AN issue. A key issue. Not THE key issue.

The South did not want more slaves. What were they going to do with them? Have them pick tumbleweeds?

You seem to be missing the key issue. They were not going to meekly accept a minority representation in Congress. IT WAS to their disadvantage economically for northern industrialists to control Congress.

Won't answer what question? Why some rich, greedy powerful politicians were hypocrites? You can't answer it either and we STILL have them. Why do any politicians armtwist to get what is in their best interest? usually it's because they owe their jobs to the wealthy people that are responsible for putting them in their position.

So, the South which had most of the Presidents prior to 1860, had an unfair advantage with the 3/5 clause and controlled the supreme court was mad because it couldn't control everything was just going to declare the government null and void. How convienant! They deserved to get their asses kicked.

 

[Orange_Juice]

They threatened to secede.

I am not saying slavery is the main issue. Unlike you, I'm not saying anyone single issue was "the" issue. I'm saying there were several main issues of which slavery was only one.

I understand you don't want to face the truth that the south started the war to protect slavery. It was the issues to which all other issues flowed, plain and simple

 

[Annie]

So, the South which had most of the Presidents prior to 1860, had an unfair advantage with the 3/5 clause and controlled the supreme court was mad because it couldn't control everything was just going to declare the government null and void. How convienant! They deserved to get their asses kicked.

The tide had been turning for awhile, they saw that and acted. They were hoping Lincoln would allow them to secede, they were wrong. All their issues, save slavery, haunt us still today.

All those issues were debated during the ratification process, something that should be studied by high school students, imo. I expose my middle schoolers to the Federalists v Anti-Federalists arguments.

 

[RodISHI]

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.

Good point. There were also white slaves.

 

[Gunny]

Slavery was the reason. "Industrialisation" in the North wasn't that all far along. Hell, the North west was mostly agricultural iteslf and they joined the free states

Not even close.

 

[Gunny]

So, the South which had most of the Presidents prior to 1860, had an unfair advantage with the 3/5 clause and controlled the supreme court was mad because it couldn't control everything was just going to declare the government null and void. How convienant! They deserved to get their asses kicked.

Dude, you REALLY need to wake up. The Nation was founded by wealthy whites and intellectuals FOR wealthy whites and intellectuals and they were as unscrupulous then as they are now. Southerners didn't have a lock on it.

Usually they're just trying to figure out how to screw someone else out of their last dime. On this occasion it was each other.

The people on BOTH sides should have tossed them all into a ring and let THEM do the damned fighting they were so willing to send others to do for the benefit of their wallets.

 

[Gunny]

I understand you don't want to face the truth that the south started the war to protect slavery. It was the issues to which all other issues flowed, plain and simple

I understand and accept the truth. Just not YOUR revisionist version of events.

The fact is, YOU can't accept the fact there was a bigger picture than your revisionism is willing to accept. You prefer the simple little morally and politically correct version because you don't have to look too deeply at the real issues. Why do you think I would expect you to treat history any differently than current politics?

 

[Annie]

Good point. There were also white slaves.

??? Are you referring to indentured servants?

 

[RodISHI]

??? Are you referring to indentured servants?

I am talking about people who old there children. Their were also people who sold themselves into servitude. Nothing new under the sun. There are people who still enslave people today.