The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-06-2015, 11:57 AM
The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
As I am about to back to my native state and will surely have to deal with the racial issues that have been illuminated in recent weeks (and because I am sitting at a Barnes and Noble with a very interesting book called "Lies my teacher told me" by James W. Loewen), I thought I would make a thread about what you learned about the Civil War (or as some preferred to call it "The War between the States" as a way of minimizing the fact that it was a war of treason that rifted our country apart).

For me, I grew up being told, repeatedly by nearly every history teacher I had, that the Civil War wasn't about slavery and was instead about "States' Rights." The implication was that the South (the hero of the story, always) was defending the rights of individual states against the tyranny of the federal government, and that slavery was just coincidentally linked.

But that of course ignores largely all of the Declaration of Secession put forth by the Confederate States titled "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union"

And it especially ignores parts like this:
"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

Yeah, the South wasn't advocating for States' rights to make their own laws or to have control over themselves, they were actually upset that they couldn't force the non-slave holding states to do what they wanted. They were actually mad that the Federal Government WOULDN'T trump states' rights and enforce federal laws that allowed the southern states to export african americans (freed or escaped slaves) from the free states back to plantations in the southern states.

This is truly one of the Lies my teacher told me regarding the Civil War. Gasp

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
30-06-2015, 12:18 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
I don't know, I guess it goes both ways, how this adds to it. But people also ignore the element of expansion. As in the expansion to the West being a battle both sides wanted to win. Your point of that quote here does kinda highlight how that would of effected the future states out West as well as current states.

The rise of Kansas as a territory being against slavery in contrast to Missouri was the application of these scenarios.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 12:21 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 12:18 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't know, I guess it goes both ways, how this adds to it. But people also ignore the element of expansion. As in the expansion to the West being a battle both sides wanted to win. Your point of that quote here does kinda highlight how that would of effected the future states out West as well as current states.

The rise of Kansas as a territory being against slavery in contrast to Missouri was the application of these scenarios.

Slave owners also asked President Buchanan to make Kansas a slave-owning state through the Executive Branch in 1858.

Curiously, they stopped petitioning the Executive Branch to use its legislative power to make decisions for the states in 1860, after Lincoln was elected...Consider

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
To be fair to your teacher --- that's just what he/she was told.

I posted this on a different thread - but it applies here ---

The government of the south was run (as today's government is) by people with money -- i.e. plantation owners, who owned slaves. They did not fight the war - they sat home and drank mint juleps.......

The war was fought on the part of the south -- mostly by common men who did NOT own slaves. If they'd been told the war was over slavery - they likely would have given it a hearty "fuck you" and not wanted to fight.

So -- the government of the south convinced the common guy that the war was over "state's rights"....

And they told their kids, and their kids, ect.......

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
30-06-2015, 12:29 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
Yeah, they like to promote their "states rights" crap. But they wanted states rights to....... HAVE SLAVERY!

The also teach that the South wanted "states rights" to have their own economy. Yeah sure, and that economy was based on, guess what, their states rights to.... HAVE SLAVERY!

And now they want to have "states rights" to not allow same sex marriage because of religious freedom. Yeah, religious freedom to..... DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHERS!

Bunch of assholes.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like dancefortwo's post
30-06-2015, 12:29 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
That would be the War of Northern Aggression...

Damn Yankees.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
30-06-2015, 12:33 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 12:26 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  To be fair to your teacher --- that's just what he/she was told.

I posted this on a different thread - but it applies here ---

The government of the south was run (as today's government is) by people with money -- i.e. plantation owners, who owned slaves. They did not fight the war - they sat home and drank mint juleps.......

The war was fought on the part of the south -- mostly by common men who did NOT own slaves. If they'd been told the war was over slavery - they likely would have given it a hearty "fuck you" and not wanted to fight.

So -- the government of the south convinced the common guy that the war was over "state's rights"....

And they told their kids, and their kids, ect.......

I don't think it had much of anything to do with the soldiers of the time being convinced it was about something else (it isn't like the Declaration of Secession hides that it is about slavery) but more so to do with racism and the fact that the history books white-washed the reasons and the racism for generations.

Or to put it another way, it was a commonly held belief in the country at the time that slavery was a good thing for society and a good thing for Africans (something I still hear people say today), partially because they viewed Africa as "the Dark Continent" and that they thought they were helping the slaves by bringing them to a more "civilized" country.

Gone with the Wind (1933) seems to sum up the attitudes well
"The former field hands found themselves suddenly elevated to the seats of the mighty. There they conducted themselves as creatures of small intelligence might naturally be expected to do. Like monkeys or small children turned loose among treasured objects whose value is beyond their comprehension, they ran wild - either from perverse pleasure in destruction or simply because of their ignorance."

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 12:26 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  To be fair to your teacher --- that's just what he/she was told.

I posted this on a different thread - but it applies here ---

The government of the south was run (as today's government is) by people with money -- i.e. plantation owners, who owned slaves. They did not fight the war - they sat home and drank mint juleps.......

The war was fought on the part of the south -- mostly by common men who did NOT own slaves. If they'd been told the war was over slavery - they likely would have given it a hearty "fuck you" and not wanted to fight.

So -- the government of the south convinced the common guy that the war was over "state's rights"....

And they told their kids, and their kids, ect.......

But yes, I am certain it was what my teachers were told and it was a lie then and a lie now (one they complacently repeated)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
I was taught the civil war was more about economics.

Of course it was in an economics class where that was said. The view could be slanted. Tongue

I had one teacher in high school who was very anti-government.

I'm sure today, if they are still teacher, would be telling the class 9-11 was a government conspiracy or some shit. Back in school they told the class that Roosevelt knew about the attacks on Pearl Harbor weeks before they happened. They weren't happy when I spent a night in the library looking at information that totally debunked all that. In fact I think during that unit I got a "d".


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
30-06-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 12:35 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I was taught the civil war was more about economics.

Of course it was in an economics class where that was said. The view could be slanted. Tongue

I had one teacher in high school who was very anti-government.

I'm sure today, if they are still teacher, would be telling the class 9-11 was a government conspiracy or some shit. Back in school they told the class that Roosevelt knew about the attacks on Pearl Harbor weeks before they happened. They weren't happy when I spent a night in the library looking at information that totally debunked all that. In fact I think during that unit I got a "d".

I wish I had been more critical when I was in those classrooms. Many of my classmates continue to repeat the rubbish they were told with nary a critical thought between any of them. No

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: