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, 01:05 PM
The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 01:00 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Complex issues generally have more than one cause.

The rank and file was sold a lot of 'state's rights' hooey by the propertied classes who, of course, did favor slavery as they were the primary slave holders.

If you take the time to read the diaries and songs of soldiers on both sides there was precious little talk of slavery one way or the other. One I would particularly recommend is "Company Aytch" by Sam Watkins. Interesting stuff.

Sure, the southern states wanted to preserve their economic policies...which centered around slave labor for their agriculture. That doesn't make it a single cause, but a unifying and underlying cause as well as a primary (but not only) cause.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
30-06-2015, 01:14 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
I was taught also that the issues were mainly economical and state's rights. Obviously with one of the major relationships between the two being slavery.

Also my teacher seemed to be against Lincoln a little as she emphasized that people give him too much praise for being "saviour of the slaves" etc.

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 01:25 PM
The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 01:14 PM)SunnyD1 Wrote:  I was taught also that the issues were mainly economical and state's rights. Obviously with one of the major relationships between the two being slavery.

Also my teacher seemed to be against Lincoln a little as she emphasized that people give him too much praise for being "saviour of the slaves" etc.

I guess it's not just the victor who rights the history books, but the bigot and the stubborn ignorant.

I don't remember anyone explicitly speaking against Lincoln about his role, but it wouldn't surprise me if they (my old teachers) held those opinions.

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, 03:11 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
My sister's fiancé was born, raised, & still lives in a Southern State. With all the recent commotion over the Confederate battle flag we've mildly engaged discussions about its place in history. He seems to be able to view it solely as a symbol of "Southern heritage," & all but flatly denies the proponents of slavery & racism permeated throughout that heritage. Instead, he consistently falls back on the diversionary argument of, "every culture had slaves... migrants to America became slaves for the railroads, & all suffered racism... blah, blah, blah..." Overall he's a great guy, but I'd be lying if I couldn't admit to being concerned by his ability to rationalize the whole topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes 7R0MM3L's post
30-06-2015, 03:17 PM
The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 03:11 PM)7R0MM3L Wrote:  My sister's fiancé was born, raised, & still lives in a Southern State. With all the recent commotion over the Confederate battle flag we've mildly engaged discussions about its place in history. He seems to be able to view it solely as a symbol of "Southern heritage," & all but flatly denies the proponents of slavery & racism permeated throughout that heritage. Instead, he consistently falls back on the diversionary argument of, "every culture had slaves... migrants to America became slaves for the railroads, & all suffered racism... blah, blah, blah..." Overall he's a great guy, but I'd be lying if I couldn't admit to being concerned by his ability to rationalize the whole topic.

It's easy to become blinded by it when it's the only perspective you've ever had and all the adults in your life when you were growing up told you those lies.

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, 06:59 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
I think it was probably a lot to do with the times in which it happened.
The US only gained independence in 1783. It brought land from the French, warred with Mexico and Texas. Individual states were colonies of France or Mexico/Spain etc.. In a relatively short time frame the US government exerted its authority on these places which otherwise were use to doing things their way and now some "Englishmen" up north were telling them what they could and couldn't do.

So I think this argument that it was about individual states rights to do whatever the fuck they want has some weight.
That right that the south wanted to keep just so happened to be slavery.

I think the north winning probably allowed the US government to get a strong control of the country where as if they lost I think the federal government would have been very weak and the US would be more like the EU model where individual states (or countries in this case) have complete control of their own affairs.
I dunno, I don't know much about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
30-06-2015, 07:31 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 06:59 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I think it was probably a lot to do with the times in which it happened.
The US only gained independence in 1783. It brought land from the French, warred with Mexico and Texas. Individual states were colonies of France or Mexico/Spain etc.. In a relatively short time frame the US government exerted its authority on these places which otherwise were use to doing things their way and now some "Englishmen" up north were telling them what they could and couldn't do.

So I think this argument that it was about individual states rights to do whatever the fuck they want has some weight.
That right that the south wanted to keep just so happened to be slavery.

I think the north winning probably allowed the US government to get a strong control of the country where as if they lost I think the federal government would have been very weak and the US would be more like the EU model where individual states (or countries in this case) have complete control of their own affairs.
I dunno, I don't know much about it.

I'm inclined to agree with your last paragraph, particularly the last sentence- as history kicks my ass. Another likely outcome could have been an invasion by a country looking to make good on a divided nation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 07:39 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 07:31 PM)7R0MM3L Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 06:59 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I think it was probably a lot to do with the times in which it happened.
The US only gained independence in 1783. It brought land from the French, warred with Mexico and Texas. Individual states were colonies of France or Mexico/Spain etc.. In a relatively short time frame the US government exerted its authority on these places which otherwise were use to doing things their way and now some "Englishmen" up north were telling them what they could and couldn't do.

So I think this argument that it was about individual states rights to do whatever the fuck they want has some weight.
That right that the south wanted to keep just so happened to be slavery.

I think the north winning probably allowed the US government to get a strong control of the country where as if they lost I think the federal government would have been very weak and the US would be more like the EU model where individual states (or countries in this case) have complete control of their own affairs.
I dunno, I don't know much about it.

I'm inclined to agree with your last paragraph, particularly the last sentence- as history kicks my ass. Another likely outcome could have been an invasion by a country looking to make good on a divided nation.

Had the South managed to fend off the North into a stalemate then Mexico probably would have invaded a weakened Confederacy to reclaim lost territory and gain new.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
30-06-2015, 08:18 PM (This post was last modified: 30-06-2015 08:25 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 11:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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

And not only that, Dude: if you look through the CSA Constitution, you will find passages such as:

Quote:No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.

[Article IV, §2.3]

The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

[Article IV, §3.3]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

Slavery was part and parcel of their Constitution. Asserting that the war was about States' Rights denies the obvious fact that the CSA denied its own states the right to decide slavery. In their own Constitution, they made slavery federally-mandated. "States' Rights" was simply a selling point, as others have noted, to both the front-line soldiers of the day, and nowadays the revanchists who insist on flying the defeated emblem.

That's not to say that slavery was the sole, or even primary, issue. I think Bruce Catton had it right when he argued that the Civil War was as much a battle of socio-economic outlooks -- pastoralism vs industrialism, immigrant-based expansion vs locally-grown slave laborers, modernism vs traditionalis,.

But slavery was sure as hell a big component of the equation, and the revisionists arguing that it was about states' rights and nothing else are full of horseshit and hand grenades.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
30-06-2015, 08:23 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
<double post edited>
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: