States Rights?

[Orange_Juice]

I find it amazing that somewhat "educated" Americans still believe the South was fighting for states rights. I ask them what rights had been violated that suddenly made them feel the need to seceed from the Union. They can never answer with even a decent falsehood

 

[del]

I find it amazing that somewhat "educated" Americans still believe the South was fighting for states rights. I ask them what rights had been violated that suddenly made them feel the need to seceed from the Union. They can never answer with even a decent falsehood

how very nice for you.
<yawn>

 

[Orange_Juice]

how very nice for you.
<yawn>

Over your head? Probably. Why do you even bother responding to a subject you know nothing about bird brain

 

[Annie]

I find it amazing that somewhat "educated" Americans still believe the South was fighting for states rights. I ask them what rights had been violated that suddenly made them feel the need to seceed from the Union. They can never answer with even a decent falsehood

I'm not arguing for the South or secession, however their 'fight' about states' rights hinged on determinism of each state to say whether or not to allow slavery or any like issue, (today the issues are gay marriage, abortion, death penalty). The sectionalism at that time was acute, following the issues of new territories being admitted. The South was rural and fighting a losing battle of representatives in Congress.

I'm not arguing they were right, especially at slavery, but their argument was logical and not a new one. Heck, it had been argued via the anti-Federalists.

 

[Gunny]

I find it amazing that somewhat "educated" Americans still believe the South was fighting for states rights. I ask them what rights had been violated that suddenly made them feel the need to seceed from the Union. They can never answer with even a decent falsehood

Little bit of spin here. don't you think? Good thing you started this thread though. I was beginning to worry something bad had happened in your life and you'd lost your zing.

States Rights was one of the reasons the South seceded. Obviously, Southern states believed they had the right to secede and in disagreements with the Federal government, that the state was the deciding factor and not the Federal government. They believed they had the right to secede while the Federal government was saying they did not.

 

[Orange_Juice]

I'm not arguing for the South or secession, however their 'fight' about states' rights hinged on determinism of each state to say whether or not to allow slavery or any like issue, (today the issues are gay marriage, abortion, death penalty). The sectionalism at that time was acute, following the issues of new territories being admitted. The South was rural and fighting a losing battle of representatives in Congress.

I'm not arguing they were right, especially at slavery, but their argument was logical and not a new one. Heck, it had been argued via the anti-Federalists.

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

 

[Againsheila]

I find it amazing that somewhat "educated" Americans still believe the South was fighting for states rights. I ask them what rights had been violated that suddenly made them feel the need to seceed from the Union. They can never answer with even a decent falsehood

Do some research. A tarriff was passed on manufactured goods, forcing the south to purchase their manufactured goods from the north, there was no such tarriff placed on raw goods so the north could purchase from anybody.

The south felt they weren't being represented. The final straw was when Lincoln was elected without a single vote from a southern state.

There were 4 slaveholding states that remained with the north.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free anybody, it exempted all slaves in northern territory and all slaves in southern territory already under northern control.

I'm amazed at the number of people in this country still uneducated about the civil war. I've had conversations with foreigners that know more about our civil war than most Americans.

South Carolina was the only state that listed "slavery" as their reason for suceeding.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Little bit of spin here. don't you think? Good thing you started this thread though. I was beginning to worry something bad had happened in your life and you'd lost your zing.

States Rights was one of the reasons the South seceded. Obviously, Southern states believed they had the right to secede and in disagreements with the Federal government, that the state was the deciding factor and not the Federal government. They believed they had the right to secede while the Federal government was saying they did not.

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

 

[Annie]

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 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.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Do some research. A tarriff was passed on manufactured goods, forcing the south to purchase their manufactured goods from the north, there was no such tarriff placed on raw goods so the north could purchase from anybody.

The south felt they weren't being represented. The final straw was when Lincoln was elected without a single vote from a southern state.

There were 4 slaveholding states that remained with the north.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free anybody, it exempted all slaves in northern territory and all slaves in southern territory already under northern control.

I'm amazed at the number of people in this country still uneducated about the civil war. I've had conversations with foreigners that know more about our civil war than most Americans.

South Carolina was the only state that listed "slavery" as their reason for suceeding.

wow, just wow! You mean the tariff that was passed back when Hamilton was secretary of the treasury??? It took the south that many years to finally say enough is enough? No, that wasn't the reason. That's just silly.

And as to your trying to abrogate slavery as the cause of secession I'll let the Vice President of the Southern Confederacy answer for me:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens

 

[Orange_Juice]

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.

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

 

[Orange_Juice]

Do some research. A tarriff was passed on manufactured goods, forcing the south to purchase their manufactured goods from the north, there was no such tarriff placed on raw goods so the north could purchase from anybody.

The south felt they weren't being represented. The final straw was when Lincoln was elected without a single vote from a southern state.

There were 4 slaveholding states that remained with the north.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free anybody, it exempted all slaves in northern territory and all slaves in southern territory already under northern control.

I'm amazed at the number of people in this country still uneducated about the civil war. I've had conversations with foreigners that know more about our civil war than most Americans.

South Carolina was the only state that listed "slavery" as their reason for suceeding.

As to the Emancapation Proclamation, it was issued after Lincoln attempted to buy all the slaves in the border states and free them. While the EP took time to be put into effect, it did later free many, many slaves that were liberated by the Northern's army. Lincoln later pushed for the 13th amendmnent and wanted to allow some slaves to vote. When the white supremicist Booth heard about that he declared it was the last straw and shot Lincoln. Lincoln was likked by a white supremicist

 

[Annie]

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

But you weren't alive then and if you were, probably would have been an abolitionist, so the South probably would not have asked you to be their spokesperson.

2008, d'oh. What is your point? To say that the South should have lost? They did.

 

[Againsheila]

As to the Emancapation Proclamation, it was issued after Lincoln attempted to buy all the slaves in the border states and free them. While the EP took time to be put into effect, it did later free many, many slaves that were liberated by the Northern's army. Lincoln later pushed for the 13th amendmnent and wanted to allow some slaves to vote. When the white supremicist Booth heard about that he declared it was the last straw and shot Lincoln. Lincoln was likked by a white supremicist

If the war was about slavery, why is it the slaves in the north were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation? Why did they have to wait until AFTER the civil war was over to be freed?

 

[Annie]

If the war was about slavery, why is it the slaves in the north were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation? Why did they have to wait until AFTER the civil war was over to be freed?

Border states.

 

[Orange_Juice]

If the war was about slavery, why is it the slaves in the north were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation? Why did they have to wait until AFTER the civil war was over to be freed?

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.

 

[del]

Over your head? Probably. Why do you even bother responding to a subject you know nothing about bird brain

no, actually, the point would be there's no point in talking to someone who will ignore any evidence presented that gainsays their argument and is incapable of seeing beyond their own prejudices.

so, as i said.
how nice for you.
<yawn>

 

[Againsheila]

Border states.

Two of them were not border states.
And that still doesn't explain why their slaves weren't freed until AFTER the civil war was over.

 

[Annie]

Two of them were not border states.
And that still doesn't explain why their slaves weren't freed until AFTER the civil war was over.

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.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Two of them were not border states.
And that still doesn't explain why their slaves weren't freed until AFTER the civil war was over.

They might have left the Union if Lincoln tried to free them and he actually did try and buy all the slaves there and free them. Those slaveholders there said no