in the US civil war

[Deadstick]

They even wrote letters to Americans during the Civil War, begging them not to abolish slavery, because they would lose their jobs in the cotton mills. Despite abysmal conditions and payment!

And yet those workers made a stand and boycotted slave cotton, that is my point they were willing to make personal sacrifices that is something to be proud of.

 

[Deadstick]

They were fighting for the right to own people. However you want to dress it that is what it boils down to.

That is the bottom line, something like the English civil war many who fought for King Charles and were recruited by big Royalist landowners fought and died to maintain that undemocratic and unfair system which was totally against their own interests.

 

[Deadstick]

Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The South had slaves because slavery was a legal institution. Protected by the Constitution. That you don't like it or that anyone doesn't like, is immaterial. The South was doing what was right by the law and protected by the law. Making the North, the lawbreakers. Making the North the traitors to the Constitution.

Quantrill

Well it was the law to have segregation in the Southern States as recent as the 1960s, doesn't make it right.

 

[Quantrill]

They were fighting for the right to own people. However you want to dress it that is what it boils down to.

I dress it as it was. Slavery was protected by Constitution. The South was doing nothing wrong. The South seceded because the North refused to treat the South as equals under the Constitution. The North went to war against the South due to that secession. The South was fighting for her right to govern herself.

The North didn't make war to free the slaves. The North made war to bring the South back into the Union.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Well it was the law to have segregation in the Southern States as recent as the 1960s, doesn't make it right.

Segregation was the law in Northern States as well. I guess that made it right...right?

Quantrill

 

[Deadstick]

Segregation was the law in Northern States as well. I guess that made it right...right?

Quantrill

That shows what a utter disgrace the US was, in the North i think the racism was more casual but in most aspects of life, in the South Jim Crow was enforced more strictly backed up by law enforcement, it was the 1960s before the last of Jim Crow laws were scrapped, a disgrace it took so long.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Confederacy, the Southern States, was formed as a result of States seceding from the United States Union. They seceded because they were no longer treated as equals under the Constitution by the Northern States.

"It was not the passage of the personal liberty laws, it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern states of equality in the Union--generally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion from the territories, the common property of the states, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquility. (The Rise And Fall Of The Confederate Government, Vol. 1, Jefferson Davis, Da Capo Press Inc., 1990, p. 70)

Quantrill

LOL the only thing they were prevented from doing in the territories was institute slavery.

 

[Quantrill]

That shows what a utter disgrace the US was, in the North i think the racism was more casual but in most aspects of life, in the South Jim Crow was enforced more strictly backed up by law enforcement, it was the 1960s before the last of Jim Crow laws were scrapped, a disgrace it took so long.

A more causual racism in the North. A nicer racism. Typical. How about those New York city draft riots? All those whites lynching, and burning blacks to death. Is tht some of that casual racism?

The North had black laws also which wouldn't be scrapped till the Civil Rights movents also.

Quantrill

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

4 of 4 now voted for the North

Stop posting these updates. They are unnecessary and just spamming the board. Reported.

 

[Quantrill]

LOL the only thing they were prevented from doing in the territories was institute slavery.

Which wasn't the only thing they were doing. Read again Jefferson Davis quote. But concerning the territories, the South had every right to take it's property into the territory just like the North did.

And, slavery was already instituted.

Quantrill

 

[AZrailwhale]

They simply couldn´t do without slaves. A mere agricultural state without much industry.

They THOUGHT they couldn't do without slaves. Over and over again, free labor has proven superior in performance and lower in costs than slavery throughout history.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Which has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The South had slaves because slavery was a legal institution. Protected by the Constitution. That you don't like it or that anyone doesn't like, is immaterial. The South was doing what was right by the law and protected by the law. Making the North, the lawbreakers. Making the North the traitors to the Constitution.

Quantrill

Slavery was only protected in slave states. ALL the new states and territories banned the importation or ownership of slaves. It was only a matter of time until slavery was declared illegal by a Constitutional Amendment. The slave states had already lost their stranglehold over the Federal Government and could see the handwriting on the wall. Their fields were depleted by over farming, their slaves were becoming more expensive by the day to own and the "fugitive slave clause" of the Constitution was being ignored by the non-slave states to a large degree with local officials turning a blind eye to the operations of the Underground Railway and obstruction the activities of southern slave catchers in non-slave states.

 

[AZrailwhale]

And slavery was good for them as well. Fed,clothed and housed by massa.

I disagree with your sarcasm. Although most slaves had better lives than the poor, free immigrants in the sweat shops of the north who were free to die from starvation, illness and accident at no cost to their employers. Even under those circumstances almost all people would choose freedom over slavery.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I dress it as it was. Slavery was protected by Constitution. The South was doing nothing wrong. The South seceded because the North refused to treat the South as equals under the Constitution. The North went to war against the South due to that secession. The South was fighting for her right to govern herself.

The North didn't make war to free the slaves. The North made war to bring the South back into the Union.

Quantrill

Even by the standards of the times, the slave states were viewed by the entire world as "doing something wrong". Slavery was the sole issue that kept the governments of France and England from recognizing and supporting the Confederacy in the ACW. No nation on earth recognized the Confederacy, not even Brazil which was a slave-owning country at the time.

 

[Quantrill]

Slavery was only protected in slave states. ALL the new states and territories banned the importation or ownership of slaves. It was only a matter of time until slavery was declared illegal by a Constitutional Amendment. The slave states had already lost their stranglehold over the Federal Government and could see the handwriting on the wall. Their fields were depleted by over farming, their slaves were becoming more expensive by the day to own and the "fugitive slave clause" of the Constitution was being ignored by the non-slave states to a large degree with local officials turning a blind eye to the operations of the Underground Railway and obstruction the activities of southern slave catchers in non-slave states.

Yes, you are correct that the North was ignoring and resisting the enforcement of the Fugitive slave law and ignoring the illegal underground railroad. In other words the North were the traitors to the Constitution.

Slavery was only protected in slave states due to the compromises that had been made. But the Constitution recognized no such laws. The Constitution protected the Southern to be able to take his property wherever he wanted in the U.S.

The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision removed all those compromises and set the record straight as to what the Constitution said. And of course the North went ballistic. But not surprising as they already considered the Constitution a covenant of death and an agreement with hell.

Point being, the North were the traitors, not the South.

Quantrill

 

[AZrailwhale]

Which wasn't the only thing they were doing. Read again Jefferson Davis quote. But concerning the territories, the South had every right to take it's property into the territory just like the North did.

And, slavery was already instituted.

Quantrill

Nope, slavery was banned by the majority of the existing states and all the new territories. The Tenth Amendments meant something in 1860. The states had the right to allow or prohibit slavery within their territory and having lost control of the Federal Government, the slave states couldn't impose slavery on the territories before they could assume the rights of states. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was the last gasp of the expansion of slavery in North America. It allowed Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state. The rest of the Louisiana Purchase territories were destined to be free states. Texas was only allowed to be a slave state because slavery was legal in the Constitution of the Texas Republic when Texas was admitted into the USA. There would never be another slave state in the Union. That's why the slave states seceded.

 

[Quantrill]

Even by the standards of the times, the slave states were viewed by the entire world as "doing something wrong". Slavery was the sole issue that kept the governments of France and England from recognizing and supporting the Confederacy in the ACW. No nation on earth recognized the Confederacy, not even Brazil which was a slave-owning country at the time.

The U.S. goes by the Constitution not by any standard of times...or, they are supposed to. Many in the North would claim they were under a 'Higher Law' than the Constitution. Which was proof they were breaking the Constitution.

The problem with that 'Higher Law' is, who determines what that is? No doubt it must be the righteous North.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Nope, slavery was banned by the majority of the existing states and all the new territories. The Tenth Amendments meant something in 1860. The states had the right to allow or prohibit slavery within their territory and having lost control of the Federal Government, the slave states couldn't impose slavery on the territories before they could assume the rights of states. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was the last gasp of the expansion of slavery in North America. It allowed Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state. The rest of the Louisiana Purchase territories were destined to be free states. Texas was only allowed to be a slave state because slavery was legal in the Constitution of the Texas Republic when Texas was admitted into the USA. There would never be another slave state in the Union. That's why the slave states seceded.

Yup, the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision said the Southernor could take his slave property anywhere in the U.S. and in the territories.

All of the Compromises, including the Missouri Compromise were done away with by the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision. Though actually the Kansas/Nebraska bill did away with the Missouri compromise first.

The Southernor was free to take his property anywhere in the U.S. and expect the protections guaranteed under the Constitution.

Quantrill

 

[BackAgain]

It was indeed a Civil War pitting Americans who were seeking to secede from the Union against Americans who were seeking to deny their efforts to secede.

The North also had another agenda. The North opposed slavery. The South wanted to secede to preserve that hideous institution.

It seems as though the main agenda, at the outset, for Lincoln, was to keep the Union together. There is a fair basis to question whether the Constitution did authorize him to do so. But I still applaud him for seeking (and ultimately success in his effort) to preserve the Union.

It is more than mere icing on the cake that the Civil War also ended slavery as a legal institution in our land.

All things considered I support and I believe I would have supported the North

 

[Bleipriester]

They THOUGHT they couldn't do without slaves. Over and over again, free labor has proven superior in performance and lower in costs than slavery throughout history.

That is of course true and America got strong through high wages and own consumption.
But if you have a slave economy, a long process is needed to change that.