Alabama Gov looses support of 'Confederate' voters

[2GOLD 0]

Keep in mind by the end of the war, the generals and soldiers found out why their Confederate Congress wanted the war to continue and organized a treaty amongst themselves. When the Generals found out that this really had nothing to do with state's rights by that time (which it really didn't by the end), they went against the wishes of the Confederate Congress and called an end to this.

 

The real monsters were the Confederate Congress, which basically lied to their soldiers and generals for years by claiming it was 100% a state's rights issue when by the time the war was closing the Congress just wanted to keep their low cost labor.

 

Few people realize that if this was truly 100% about slavery, the war would not have ended where it ended. The War didn't end where everyone thinks it did, it nearly restarted when Lincoln was shot. The Confederate Congress (who was literally RUNNING for their lives) wanted to march on Washington with what was left of the Confederate Army and the Generals wanted NOTHING to do with the plan. If they truly wanted to keep slavery, they could have easily marched on a disorganized Washington when Lincoln was shot.

 

The real enders of the Civil War weren't the Union Army, it was really the Southern Army's Generals not wanting to go ahead with the plan. They basically revolted against their own Confederate Congress at the end.

[2GOLD 0]

One more thing, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky were all slave states and STAYED IN THE UNION.

 

Which I think is important...

 

Delaware was so weird that this state split into two armies. One was a Confederate Army and the other was a Union army. This state truly had no clue which side it was on in the Civil War.

 

Half the state supported state's rights and the other half supported a completely stable union with government having majority control. Literally confused Delaware was.

[The Decemberists 0]

I didn't mention the Delaware's, erm, specialness, but yes you're right of course. But it was technically a slave state, and did not leave the Union, so I do think it's relevent to the point, if not as relevent as the other three states.

[2GOLD 0]

I didn't mention the Delaware's, erm, specialness, but yes you're right of course. But it was technically a slave state, and did not leave the Union, so I do think it's relevent to the point, if not as relevent as the other three states.

 

Delaware was proof to many that the war really wasn't about slavery since you're right, the state remained in the Union and actually fought the Proclamation for an additional two years. The slavery issue just became the straw that broke the back of the Southern states since the North and South had been arguing since 1776. The Northern states didn't give a damn about the slaves, they just didn't like the South was making more money using free labor. It would have been nice if the reason Lincoln called for an end to slavery was pure, but it wasn't.

 

 

The North was losing so many soldiers on a weekly basis and they needed helped. The answer? Offer freedom to the slaves. Remember, in the early revolutionary war the southern states offered slaves freedom for fighting against the British and the fear in the Union was the Confederate Congress was preparing to do this again to make up for their own losses. So Lincoln cut them off, even though the Confederate Congress never had any intention of offering slaves freedom for battle although Lee had tried to convince them they would win the war with such a move.

 

Nothing about the Civil War was cut and dry. Had the Civil War not happened, slavery would have lasted for at least another 50 years or more since the Northern states would have again yielded on that had the south surrendered levels of state rights. The slavery card that started the war was just the final button the Northern states wanted to push. It was a power play and the southern states called the bluff.

[SuperJerk 0]

It's what happened in Brazil, and it's what William Lloyd Garrison thought would happen at the time. A reasonable number of slaves were already escaping, and with the guarantee of not being sent back it should be obviously more would try. And after than it's simple supply and demand economics.

The South could have taken even stricted measures to cut down on slave escapes.

 

I don't know enough about teh special circumstances of Brazil to comment further.

 

It was the constitution right to have slaves if you lived in a slave state. The modern equivalent is a war between pro and anti firearm states. It's stupid. They had a right in the constitution to have slaves.

 

Except for the method by which slaves would be counted under the census, the Constitution is silent on the issue.

 

In 1827 there were four times as many anti-slave societies in the South as there was in the North.

 

Irrelevant. The Civil War didn't start until 1861.

 

 

Plus as well as the four slave states that remained with the Union, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas only left after war had started - not in a desperate attempt to keep their slaves, but because the use of force against fellow Americans was, they believed, utterly opposed to traditional American beliefs.

 

The four slave states remained in the Union probably because they're leaders hadn't lost their damn minds the way so many other Southern leaders did.

 

Also, it would be stupid for them to side with the South if they were opposed to "the use of force against fellow Americans" since the South were the aggressors in the first battle of the war.

 

 

 

The slavery card that started the war was just the final button the Northern states wanted to push. It was a power play and the southern states called the bluff.

 

The South wasn't forced to secede when Lincoln was elected. They chose to because they were afraid their precious "way of life" (i.e. big plantations with rich slave owners profitting from slave labor) was endangered, as Lincoln was seen as an opponent of slavery.

 

I'm curious to know why it is you think that the South seceded, if not for fear that the North was encroaching on their "right" to own slaves.

[Jingus 0]

Jobber proves, once again, that the gap between intelligence and the law is Grand Canyonesque.

I don't know how to respond to that, so I'll just take it as a backhanded compliment.

No, I was sincere when I wrote that. I was drunk too, kinda like I am now, but as best as I recall it was supposed to have been a compliment. Just a badly [drunkenly] worded one.

[The Decemberists 0]

It was the constitution right to have slaves if you lived in a slave state. The modern equivalent is a war between pro and anti firearm states. It's stupid. They had a right in the constitution to have slaves.

 

Except for the method by which slaves would be counted under the census, the Constitution is silent on the issue.

Oh dear oh dear, an Englishman lecturing on Constitutional history, who'd have thought it...

 

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. Representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective members, which shall be determined by addding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.

 

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1.The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may not be imposted on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person

 

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3.No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law of regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of party to whom such service or labor may be due

 

That is three mentions of slavery. The Consitiution is NOT silent on slavery, the Constitution says slavery is a-OK - go for it. And if they run away, we'll make damn sure those niggers get put right back in their proper place. It was a Consitutional right to have slaves - fact.

 

Irrelevant.  The Civil War didn't start until 1861

 

How is that irrelevant? This is an historical debate, and anyone with any knowledge of history and historiography knows that things don't just happen. All events have long and short term causes. If the feelings of Southerners in 1826 is irrelevent to events less than 30 years later, then how the hell are the feelings and beliefs of the founding fathers, and therefore the Constitution relevent to modern life in America!? Or infact, relevent to 1860s life in America. You cannot have it both ways. The fact that there was considerable amount of anti-slavery feelings in the South less than thirty years before the Civil means that you cannot say "Oh yeah, the US Civil War. All cos those bastard Southerners loved having slaves do all the hard work for them" or whatever. Put it this way, does what happened in, say the Music industry in the 1970s have any impact on music today? Oh course it does.

 

The four slave states remained in the Union probably because they're leaders hadn't lost their damn minds the way so many other Southern leaders did. 

 

Also, it would be stupid for them to side with the South if they were opposed to "the use of force against fellow Americans" since the South were the aggressors in the first battle of the war.

 

Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas left after the Fort Sumter incident. And yes, the first shots fired were by Southerners, but there were no casualities at Fort Sumter. And there was no need to Lincoln to declare a rebellion and call up 75,000 militiamen. That was what casused Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas. And it was Lincoln, in a admittadly pretty damn clever piece of gamesmanship, who forced the shots to be fired by sending a ship to Fort Sumter to reprovision the federal troops there. If South Carolina's secession was to mean anythere Lincoln knew there was no way they could allow a federal mitiary base there, so the shots were fired as an act of resistance against the North building and suppling it's own mitilary in what, as far as South Carolina was concerned, a foreign country. Although if you read the notes about this from the Union military, Fort Sumter did not need any reprovsions for months... the ship was sent purely and simply to antagonise the South, and force them to act.

 

The South wasn't forced to secede when Lincoln was elected.  They chose to because they were afraid their precious "way of life" (i.e. big plantations with rich slave owners profitting from slave labor) was endangered, as Lincoln was seen as an opponent of slavery.

 

I'm curious to know why it is you think that the South seceded, if not for fear that the North was encroaching on their "right" to own slaves.

 

I'm not saying that slavery had nothing to do with it, and if that's how it's appearing I'm sorry for not making it clearer in my previous writing. Of course it did have some impact, as it was a big difference between the North and South. My argument, and the argument of the vast majority of historians who have studied the causes of the Civil War, is that slavery was not the most important issue by far, and certainly not the only one.

 

Yes, secceeded because of fear that there way of life would be destroyed. But that fear was not brought about just because of slavery, or even mainly because of slavery. The fact that the South wanted free trade and North wanted high tariff's was a much much greater issue than slavery. That Lincoln was openly against State rights in favour of greater federal control was a much much greater issue than slavery. Plus you cannot push aside all the problems and arguments and disagreements between North and South in the previous 10, 20, 30, 50 or a 100 years.

 

And as for your assertation that Lincoln was seen as an opponent of slavery, if you can find any quotion of his, or infact any action he took as being evidence of that, then you'll have done better than any journalist or historian in the last 150 years... and obviously, the Emancipation Declaration does not count, as a) it didn't free anyone, and b) it was a war measure, pure and simple to gain support from the Southern slaves and to encourage rebellion from them.

 

And it was there right to have slaves, and it's written right there in that wonderfull Constitution you have over there

[SuperJerk 0]

Oh dear oh dear, an Englishman lecturing on Constitutional history, who'd have thought it...

I'm pretty knowledgable about the English Civil War, if you ever feel like being lectured on THAT.

 

You got me on the places where it acknowledges slavery as a legal institution, though. Forgot about taxes and

 

If the feelings of Southerners in 1826 is irrelevent to events less than 30 years later, then how the hell are the feelings and beliefs of the founding fathers, and therefore the Constitution relevent to modern life in America!?

 

But you were trying directly to tie the comparative number of anti-slave groups in 1826 to the events of 1861, and thus ignoring all the years in between.

 

 

Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas left after the Fort Sumter incident. And yes, the first shots fired were by Southerners, but there were no casualities at Fort Sumter. And there was no need to Lincoln to declare a rebellion and call up 75,000 militiamen.

 

Sorry, but I totally agree with Lincoln's choice. Having Southerners attack a US fort is plenty of reason to call up the militia.

 

My argument, and the argument of the vast majority of historians who have studied the causes of the Civil War, is that slavery was not the most important issue by far, and certainly not the only one.

 

You must be reading different historians than I did, because that's totally not the consensus of opinion I'm aware of.

 

Nice ad populum argument, by the way.

 

The fact that the South wanted free trade and North wanted high tariff's was a much much greater issue than slavery. That Lincoln was openly against State rights in favour of greater federal control was a much much greater issue than slavery. Plus you cannot push aside all the problems and arguments and disagreements between North and South in the previous 10, 20, 30, 50 or a 100 years.

 

Most of those problems and disagreements were caused by slavery.

 

And as for your assertation that Lincoln was seen as an opponent of slavery, if you can find any quotion of his, or infact any action he took as being evidence of that, then you'll have done better than any journalist or historian in the last 150 years.

 

That's why I used the words "was seen as". Just because the South saw him as something didn't mean that he was. In the last presidential election, Bush WAS SEEN AS favoring a draft by some, even though he explicited said he did not. Do you understand my meaning now?

 

The fact that the South wanted free trade and North wanted high tariff's was a much much greater issue than slavery.

 

Yes, tariffs were an issue which helped cause the war, but not a big an issue as slavery. HOWEVER, the reason the South didn't want tarriffs is because slavery made agriculture so profitable that they didn't need tarriffs to still make money.

 

And it was there right to have slaves, and it's written right there in that wonderfull Constitution you have over there 

 

Their "right" wasn't in danger until they rebelled. Fortunately, that right was taken away after the war.

[The Decemberists 0]

Firstly, why do you keep putting "right" in speach marks? It was there right to have slaves, it's mentioned three times in the Consitution. What more proof do you want to show it was a right they had?

 

But you were trying directly to tie the comparative number of anti-slave groups in 1826 to the events of 1861, and thus ignoring all the years in between.

 

I'm pretty sure I haven't been doing that. What I'm saying it you can't make this as simple as North vs South = Abolisionist vs Slavery because it wasn't that simple.

 

Sorry, but I totally agree with Lincoln's choice. Having Southerners attack a US fort is plenty of reason to call up the militia.

 

Just as you agree with it, doesn't mean that the leaders of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas agreed with it, which is the point... Lincoln postitioned the south into making them fire pot shots at Sumter, Lincoln did not have to reprovision the fort, he did it just to antagonise the South, and to try and force them to fire so he'd have an excuse to call a rebellion. I'm repeating myself now as you seem to be ignoring the bits that would suggest the North and Lincoln more responsible for the war and not quite as saintly as maybe you would like them to be.

 

You must be reading different historians than I did, because that's totally not the consensus of opinion I'm aware of.

 

Nice ad populum argument, by the way

 

This isn't exactly me saying "all my mates think Creed rock so they're great!" is it? All I'm saying is that vast majority of people who make a living from researching the past and who have concentrated on the Civil War have came to the conclusion that slavery was not the key issue in the war. And it's been me who's been backing up my argument with quotes etc, rather then you're argument which seems to be "it was slavery" without any evidence, other than you're own opinion.

 

Most of those problems and disagreements were caused by slavery.

 

Like I said, slavery was without doubt a problem, but not the main problem at all, and not the route of all the other problems. The tariffs disagreements were not at all due to slavery, but just opposing economic views. And this played a big role in the war being supported in the Northwest. The Ohio congressman Clement Vallandigham wrote soon after the war that

 

The Northwest... demanded, now, coercion and civil war, with all its horrors, as the price of preserving political power and wealth from the destruction of the South's free trade... The subjugation of the South, and the closing up of her ports - first, by force, in war, and afterward, by tariff laws, in peace, was deliberately resolved by the east.

 

Money and political dominence was a far far greater issue than slavery in the war. The people in the North who had the power and influence to start the Civil War couldn't care less about slavery as an institution, but did care about the Confederates from being more powerfull and richer than the Union.

 

That's why I used the words "was seen as". Just because the South saw him as something didn't mean that he was. In the last presidential election, Bush WAS SEEN AS favoring a draft by some, even though he explicited said he did not. Do you understand my meaning now?

 

Point taken. Although why people should have problems with a draft I don't know... I mean Lincoln did it and he's almost a God

 

Although, again, slavery was not the issue at the heart of this. The South were scared their way of life would be destroyed, and yes, for a minority of them of course slavery was part of that life, but ultimatly slavery was a minority issue in the decision to secceed. A decision that, of course, was legal for them to do, but that isn't really the point, but is still worth keeping in mind.

 

They wanted free trade and to keep the States rights and power. And of course if it was up to them they would not have got rid of slavery, but that was not the be all and end all of the South's thinking. There were far more important issues, and issues that effected far more people, at stake than slavery.

 

Yes, tariffs were an issue which helped cause the war, but not a big an issue as slavery. HOWEVER, the reason the South didn't want tarriffs is because slavery made agriculture so profitable that they didn't need tarriffs to still make money.

 

If you think that MONEY was less important than slavery to both the North and South then you have a far higher opinion of the Human race than I have.

 

And of course there was the basic issue of States rights and opposing centralised government, and before you start about States Rights = Slavery. Do some research and it's clear that the five men who were the most vigorous in keeping a constructionist interpretation of the Consitution, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Randolf, St. George Tucker and John Taylor, only one of them could even remotly be described as pro-slavery, John Taylor, and even he, according to Eugene Genovese,

regarded it as an inherited misfortune to be tolerated, rather than celebrated

[SuperJerk 0]

Firstly, why do you keep putting "right" in speach marks? It was there right to have slaves, it's mentioned three times in the Consitution. What more proof do you want to show it was a right they had?

I'm repeating myself now as you seem to be ignoring the bits that would suggest the North and Lincoln more responsible for the war and not quite as saintly as maybe you would like them to be.

 

The quotaton marks denoted my belief that they did not have the right to own slaves, in spite of what the Constitution says.

 

I'm ignoring the bits that would suggest that Lincoln was responsible for the war because they are not true. Lincoln's responsible for the war in one way only: he wouldn't let the South leave. The South chose to leave. The South chose to attack Fort Sumner.

 

Lincoln postitioned the south into making them fire pot shots at Sumter, Lincoln did not have to reprovision the fort, he did it just to antagonise the South, and to try and force them to fire so he'd have an excuse to call a rebellion.

 

That verson of events has no basis in historical fact.

 

All I'm saying is that vast majority of people who make a living from researching the past and who have concentrated on the Civil War have came to the conclusion that slavery was not the key issue in the war.

 

And I'm saying you're wrong. The majority of the people who make a living from researching the past and who have concentrated on the Civil War have came to the conclusion that slavery WAS the key issue in the war.

 

They wanted free trade and to keep the States rights and power.

 

Yeah, they wanted make sure they continued to have the right to won slaves.

 

If you think that MONEY was less important than slavery to both the North and South then you have a far higher opinion of the Human race than I have.

 

The South wanted slaves because it made them money. The North didn't want slavery because they had no use for it. Certain northern politicians saw slavery as an issue they could use to further their political careers by exploiting the growing anti-slavery sentiment in the North. Slavery, like gay marriage was in 2004, was a wedge issue used to further a political agenda that was exploited by politicians on both sides.

 

And of course there was the basic issue of States rights and opposing centralised government, and before you start about States Rights = Slavery.  Do some research and it's clear that the five men who were the most vigorous in keeping a constructionist interpretation of the Consitution, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Randolf, St. George Tucker and John Taylor, only one of them could even remotly be described as pro-slavery, John Taylor, and even he, according to Eugene Genovese, regarded it as an inherited misfortune to be tolerated, rather than celebrated

 

The South favored states rights because it was their way of justifying slavery. That has nothing to do with why George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Randolf, St. George Tucker and John Taylor supported states rights.

 

People can ebleive the same things, but have different reasons for doing so, you know.

[The Decemberists 0]

Firstly, why do you keep putting "right" in speach marks? It was there right to have slaves, it's mentioned three times in the Consitution. What more proof do you want to show it was a right they had?

I'm repeating myself now as you seem to be ignoring the bits that would suggest the North and Lincoln more responsible for the war and not quite as saintly as maybe you would like them to be.

 

The quotaton marks denoted my belief that they did not have the right to own slaves, in spite of what the Constitution says.

 

I'm ignoring the bits that would suggest that Lincoln was responsible for the war because they are not true. Lincoln's responsible for the war in one way only: he wouldn't let the South leave. The South chose to leave. The South chose to attack Fort Sumner.

What!? "Despite what the Consitution says"!? What the hell are you talking about!? Your and mine own opinions on whether it is right or not for people to have slaves is pointless. OUR opinions are not what this is about. The Constitution says THREE TIMES that it's ok to have slaves! So how the hell do you come up with the idea they weren't allowed to have them!?

 

If Lincoln hadn't sent a ship to Fort Sumter then the South would have had nothing to fire at. If Lincoln hadn't been a hypocrit about people being allowed to remove governments they disagreed with, there wouldn't have been a war.

 

Lincoln postitioned the south into making them fire pot shots at Sumter, Lincoln did not have to reprovision the fort, he did it just to antagonise the South, and to try and force them to fire so he'd have an excuse to call a rebellion.

 

That verson of events has no basis in historical fact.

 

Yes it does. Just because it's not something you've read doesn't mean it had no base to it. That is what happened. Do some research, get some modern books on Lincoln and the war. That is what happened. Lincoln needed an excuse to attack the South, as he was desperate to keep the Union together but couldn't say "It's because they seceded" for his exuse as it they were fully entitiled too.

 

All I'm saying is that vast majority of people who make a living from researching the past and who have concentrated on the Civil War have came to the conclusion that slavery was not the key issue in the war.

 

And I'm saying you're wrong. The majority of the people who make a living from researching the past and who have concentrated on the Civil War have came to the conclusion that slavery WAS the key issue in the war.

 

Then why the hell are you not naming or quoting any!? Give me some proof other than "it's what I think"!

 

They wanted free trade and to keep the States rights and power.

 

Yeah, they wanted make sure they continued to have the right to won slaves.

 

Of course they did! I've never said they didn't want to keep their slaves! What I'm saying is, that was just the result of keeping the state power. It was not about slavery itself, there was more to it than that, and you're just refusing to see it. If they're not allowed to have slaves, then the next thing is they're not allowed to decide on education issues at state level, then on medical issues, then on trade issue etc etc. THAT is what the fear was. Not just a bucnch of rich white guys wanting to keep blacks under lock and key.

 

If you think that MONEY was less important than slavery to both the North and South then you have a far higher opinion of the Human race than I have.

 

The South wanted slaves because it made them money. The North didn't want slavery because they had no use for it. Certain northern politicians saw slavery as an issue they could use to further their political careers by exploiting the growing anti-slavery sentiment in the North. Slavery, like gay marriage was in 2004, was a wedge issue used to further a political agenda that was exploited by politicians on both sides.

 

What growing anti-slavery movement in the North? And give me some of these politicans that saw slavery as something they could further their career with. But doesn't that contradict what you said about Lincoln always being publicly pro-slavery so not to hinder his career? You cannot have it both ways.

 

And of course there was the basic issue of States rights and opposing centralised government, and before you start about States Rights = Slavery.  Do some research and it's clear that the five men who were the most vigorous in keeping a constructionist interpretation of the Consitution, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Randolf, St. George Tucker and John Taylor, only one of them could even remotly be described as pro-slavery, John Taylor, and even he, according to Eugene Genovese, regarded it as an inherited misfortune to be tolerated, rather than celebrated

 

The South favored states rights because it was their way of justifying slavery. That has nothing to do with why George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Randolf, St. George Tucker and John Taylor supported states rights.

 

People can ebleive the same things, but have different reasons for doing so, you know.

 

OK, to start with they did not need to justify slavery. IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION. For your last point, I know that full well. So why won't you agree that maybe the belief in state rights was not just about having slaves. You're whole argument consists of your opinion that all the Southern states wanted state rights just so they could keep slavery, yet now you're talking about how people can believe in things for different reasons. Maybe it's just me, but I don't really think that fits together too well.

[SuperJerk 0]

What!? "Despite what the Consitution says"!? What the hell are you talking about!? Your and mine own opinions on whether it is right or not for people to have slaves is pointless. OUR opinions are not what this is about. The Constitution says THREE TIMES that it's ok to have slaves! So how the hell do you come up with the idea they weren't allowed to have them!?

The South may have had the legal right to own slaves, but not the moral right. Hence my use of quotaton marks when talking about rights.

 

I'm sure you agree with this.

 

Lincoln needed an excuse to attack the South, as he was desperate to keep the Union together but couldn't say "It's because they seceded" for his exuse as it they were fully entitiled too.

 

That's just the opinion of disgruntled Southern historians of the past. Probably the same historians that wrote books about how the South was abused during the Reconstruction and how the slaves were happy to be slaves.

 

There were a lot of published myths about the Civil War which weren't disproven until the last 40 years.

 

Then why the hell are you not naming or quoting any!? Give me some proof other than "it's what I think"!

 

I'm being lazy. I can get you some if you really want, but I don't have access to my history books at the moment.

 

It was not about slavery itself, there was more to it than that, and you're just refusing to see it. If they're not allowed to have slaves, then the next thing is they're not allowed to decide on education issues at state level, then on medical issues, then on trade issue etc etc. THAT is what the fear was. Not just a bucnch of rich white guys wanting to keep blacks under lock and key.

 

First of all, there was little public education in the South until after the war.

 

Second, if you're arguing that the controversy over the morality of slavery was not the cause of the war, then I agree with you. It was the economics of slavery that led to the war. Everything else was just window dressing for the fact that the South felt their major economic advantage was in danger.

 

What growing anti-slavery movement in the North? And give me some of these politicans that saw slavery as something they could further their career with. But doesn't that contradict what you said about Lincoln always being publicly pro-slavery so not to hinder his career? You cannot have it both ways.

 

There was a growing anti-slavery in the North. It was one of the reasons for the founding of the Republican Party.

 

I don't think I ever said that Lincoln was always publicly pro-slavery. The Lincoln-Douglas debates and the fact he was in the anti-slavery party kind of disproves this. However, I think that he knew his hands were tied as president (because the Constitution allows it) so he wasn't planning on moving to outlaw it (which would be politically impossible).

 

So why won't you agree that maybe the belief in state rights was not just about having slaves. You're whole argument consists of your opinion that all the Southern states wanted state rights just so they could keep slavery, yet now you're talking about how people can believe in things for different reasons.

 

Throughout American history, states rights has been used as a shield whenever one side can't get its way in any other method. While the average southerner supported the concept, those in power can shift whenever its convenient. The Democratic Party went from being the states rights party around the Civil War until they got power back in the 1930s. They abandoned any pretext of supporting states rights during the 1960s. At that time, the remaining states rights Democrats (i.e. Southerners) quit the party and joined the Republicans. The Republicans became the states rights party during the New Deal and Civil Rights movement, and only just recently started to revert away from this. Now that they control all three branches of the federal government, their allegiance to states rights has nearly evaporated. Despite being a southern governor, Bush has done little to nothing to denote he believes in the 10th Amendment. The Democrats recently started embracing it after years of ignoring it. There are some who truly believe in the states rights principle, but for the people who are actually making the decisions, its just a means to an end.

[The Decemberists 0]

What!? "Despite what the Consitution says"!? What the hell are you talking about!? Your and mine own opinions on whether it is right or not for people to have slaves is pointless. OUR opinions are not what this is about. The Constitution says THREE TIMES that it's ok to have slaves! So how the hell do you come up with the idea they weren't allowed to have them!?

The South may have had the legal right to own slaves, but not the moral right. Hence my use of quotaton marks when talking about rights.

 

I'm sure you agree with this.

Yeah, morally of course it's wrong. But it was their legal right to do it, so I personally wouldn't use quotation marks. But anyway.

 

That's just the opinion of disgruntled Southern historians of the past.  Probably the same historians that wrote books about how the South was abused during the Reconstruction and how the slaves were happy to be slaves.

 

There were a lot of published myths about the Civil War which weren't disproven until the last 40 years.

 

I would point you towards Dr. Thomas E Woods book 'American History', written and published in 2004. He's from the North, a New Yorker I think, and he supports all I've been saying. So you cannot just disregard all history written which doesn't lay the fault entirely at the South.

 

And some slaves were, if not happy, relativly content with their lives. There are documented slave accounts where the ex-slave speaks highly of their former owners and were treated fairly. Of course not all were happy, quite the opposite i'd imagine. To presume all slave owners were evil and automaticly mistreated their slaves is not fair at all.

 

First of all, there was little public education in the South until after the war. 

 

Second, if you're arguing that the controversy over the morality of slavery was not the cause of the war, then I agree with you.  It was the economics of slavery that led to the war. Everything else was just window dressing for the fact that the South felt their major economic advantage was in danger.

 

I didn't mean public education specifically. I was just trying to think of anything that could have been in the power of the State. I probably should have made that clear. Sorry.

 

Yes, the only impact slavery had on the war was the economics of it, but again, that is not enough for a war. Every other country in the world that had slavery got rid of it without a Civil War, but the US couldn't. That alone suggests there was more to it than that.

 

There was a growing anti-slavery in the North.  It was one of the reasons for the founding of the Republican Party.

 

I don't think I ever said that Lincoln was always publicly pro-slavery.  The Lincoln-Douglas debates and the fact he was in the anti-slavery party kind of disproves this.  However, I think that he knew his hands were tied as president (because the Constitution allows it) so he wasn't planning on moving to outlaw it (which would be politically impossible).

 

I took it to mean there was a grass roots populist anti-slavery movement, which there wasn't. But yes, those rich enough with enough influence to form a new political party did want to get rid of slavery intially to be able to make more money for themselves in the new lands in the west.

 

I said Lincoln was pro-slavery, because he was. You said that he only said all his pro-slavery statements because it would harm his career if he didn't. Then you said that people said they were pro-slavery to help their careers. And how can you say the Douglas-Lincoln debates show he's anti-slavery??? I've already quoted, at length, from Lincoln's side of the debates which shows he was pro-slavery. If you're just going to ignore the evidence I'm giving you then there's no point arguing this. And yes he was in the "anti-slavery" party, but look back at what I've written before about him voting in favour of making slavery purely a state issue. I've told you all this, and you're ignoring it!

 

And how can you say that outlawing slavery was politically impossible when it was done by President Johnson after the war?

[SuperJerk 0]

The book you're thinking of is "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History". I hope this isn't you're only source. Thomas E. Woods, who does live in New York, is a right-wing hack who digs up old quote and authors out of context to "prove" his points. Few in the historical community takes him seriously. If you want more balanced and respected accounts of the causes of the Civil War, you're better off looking at writers like Stampp or Nevin.

 

And how can you say that outlawing slavery was politically impossible when it was done by President Johnson after the war?

 

It was politically impossible to do at the time Lincoln became president, which was before the war. Only only became possible to do after the war.

 

 

Yes, the only impact slavery had on the war was the economics of it, but again, that is not enough for a war.

 

Wars are only fought when there is wealth (including large amounts of land) to be made, stolen or protected.

 

There are documented slave accounts where the ex-slave speaks highly of their former owners and were treated fairly. Of course not all were happy, quite the opposite i'd imagine. To presume all slave owners were evil and automaticly mistreated their slaves is not fair at all.

 

If slaves were ever treated fair, they'd have been paid for their labor.

 

I said Lincoln was pro-slavery, because he was. You said that he only said all his pro-slavery statements because it would harm his career if he didn't. Then you said that people said they were pro-slavery to help their careers. And how can you say the Douglas-Lincoln debates show he's anti-slavery???

 

While Lincoln was a white supremacist, but he did believe that slavery was wrong.

 

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/li...ches/hodges.htm

Edited April 11, 2005 by RobotJerk

[The Decemberists 0]

If it was my only source I'd be an idiot.

 

I've got stuff by Garrison, DiLorenzo, Royster, Farmer and Jones and others

 

I think that's enough to get a decent overview.

[The Decemberists 0]

double post

[The Decemberists 0]

The book you're thinking of is "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History".

 

I hope this isn't you're only source.

 

Thomas E. Woods, who does live in New York, is a right-wing hack who digs up old quote and authors out of context to prove his points. Few in the historical community takes him seriously.

 

If you want more balanced and respected accounts of the causes of the Civil War, you're better off looking at writers like Stampp or Nevin.

Is that all the response?

 

I thought you'd at least to go back to repeating your argument

[SuperJerk 0]

I often edit in several lines to existing posts after I initially reply. Go back and read it now.

 

I've got stuff by Garrison, DiLorenzo, Royster, Farmer and Jones and others

 

I think that's enough to get a decent overview.

 

I never heard of most of those guys, so my question now becomes do those historians actually support the view that slavery didn't cause the war, or are you just using the pieces of their work that can be used to support your claims?

Edited April 11, 2005 by RobotJerk

[Stephen Joseph 0]

*Cough* Fogel and Engelman, Time on a Cross *Cough*

 

Points

1) Moral rights be damned here. Legally, they had the right. So legally speaking, if the war had been fought over slavery, in a court of law the South would have prevailed. When discussing history, it must be discussed and debated in its context, not inclusive of more modern thought (though more modern data helps quite a bit).

2) I know who he's referring to. That's because I did my research by googling them, though some I;ve read.

 

To cinch this up, I'm going to pimp some economic historians.

 

Fogel and Engelman

1. Slavery was not a system irrationally kept in existence by owners who failed to perceive or were indifferent to their best economic interests. The purchase of a slave was generally a highly profitable investment which yielded rates of return that compared favorably with the most outstanding investment opportunities in manufacturing.

 

2. The slave system was not economically moribund on the eve of the Civil War. There is no evidence that economic forces alone would have soon brought slavery to an end without the necessity of a war or other form of political intervention. Quite the contrary; as the Civil War approached, slavery as an economic system was never stronger and the trend was toward even further entrenchment.

 

3. Slaveowners were not becoming pessimistic about the future of their system during the decade that preceded the Civil War. The rise of the secessionist movement coincided with a wave of optimism. On the eve of the Civil War, slaveholders anticipated an era of unprecedented prosperity.

 

*Note* A good bit of their work has since fallen out of favor. However, the economic notions they explored still cannot be ignored, nor can the book's contribution to economic scholarship.

 

http://mutex.gmu.edu:2051/view/00028282/di...6dc%3DEconomics

[SuperJerk 0]

Moral rights be damned here.  Legally, they had the right.  So legally speaking, if the war had been fought over slavery, in a court of law the South would have prevailed.

Technically, the war wasn't fought over slavery. The war was fought over whether or not the South had a right to leave the union. The reason the South wanted to leave, however, was due to slavery and Lincoln's opposition to its expansion. Tarriffs and sectionalism were reasons too, but slavery factored into both sectionalism (resentment between North and South) and tarriffs (the South didn't want tarriffs because slavery had made agricultural production so cost effective). Thus slavery was the reason the South wanted to leave and thus the reason for the war.

 

Sorry, your link didn't work for me Stephen. I'm going to try to find that book, though.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Moral rights be damned here.  Legally, they had the right.  So legally speaking, if the war had been fought over slavery, in a court of law the South would have prevailed.

Technically, the war wasn't fought over slavery. The war was fought over whether or not the South had a right to leave the union. The reason the South wanted to leave, however, was due to slavery and Lincoln's opposition to its expansion. Tarriffs and sectionalism were reasons too, but slavery factored into both sectionalism (resentment between North and South) and tarriffs (the South didn't want tarriffs because slavery had made agricultural production so cost effective). Thus slavery was the reason the South wanted to leave and thus the reason for the war.

 

Sorry, your link didn't work for me Stephen. I'm going to try to find that book, though.

The North faced a crippled economy if the South seceded (and more reliance on ole GB, yes.

 

I think that if weed was in high supply back then, we'd have had less problems.