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, 08:24 PM
The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 08:18 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(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.

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 had grenades.

I think the point of saying that it had something to do primarily with socioeconomic differences is correct, but at the heart of both social and economic differences was the racial division of slavery. It was intricately entangled into the identity of the United States, as slavery had been an integral part of the United States since it had been founded (most of the founding fathers had slaves and only a few of them ever freed any). And at the heart of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries was racially motivated slavery. Because it wasn't like they were okay with white people being slaves, they saw Africans as sub-human and/or grossly inferior.

The U.S. had a very deep history of racist divides rooted in the culture that promoted and justified slavery, and led to some finding it difficult or impossible to reconcile their views of equality and freedom, with owning slaves.

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, 08:27 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
<gah!>
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 08:35 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 08:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:18 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  And not only that, Dude: if you look through the CSA Constitution, you will find passages such as:


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.

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 traditionalism.

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 had grenades.

I think the point of saying that it had something to do primarily with socioeconomic differences is correct, but at the heart of both social and economic differences was the racial division of slavery. It was intricately entangled into the identity of the United States, as slavery had been an integral part of the United States since it had been founded (most of the founding fathers had slaves and only a few of them ever freed any). And at the heart of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries was racially motivated slavery. Because it wasn't like they were okay with white people being slaves, they saw Africans as sub-human and/or grossly inferior.

The U.S. had a very deep history of racist divides rooted in the culture that promoted and justified slavery, and led to some finding it difficult or impossible to reconcile their views of equality and freedom, with owning slaves.

Sure. And to that point, the immigrant-based labor pool of the North was racially motivated as well. Racism was indeed -- sad but true -- built into the fabric of the nation. After all, the nation wa a product of a racist era. Not only the South, but the North's economy as well was entangled for much of our early life as a nation.

There were some white slaves held in the Missouri/Mississippi/Ohio river confluencem though. Not trying to argue that slavery wasn't a racial issue -- it surely was -- but saying that like any generalization, that one breaks down on the edges.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
30-06-2015, 08:41 PM
The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 08:35 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I think the point of saying that it had something to do primarily with socioeconomic differences is correct, but at the heart of both social and economic differences was the racial division of slavery. It was intricately entangled into the identity of the United States, as slavery had been an integral part of the United States since it had been founded (most of the founding fathers had slaves and only a few of them ever freed any). And at the heart of slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries was racially motivated slavery. Because it wasn't like they were okay with white people being slaves, they saw Africans as sub-human and/or grossly inferior.

The U.S. had a very deep history of racist divides rooted in the culture that promoted and justified slavery, and led to some finding it difficult or impossible to reconcile their views of equality and freedom, with owning slaves.

Sure. And to that point, the immigrant-based labor pool of the North was racially motivated as well. Racism was indeed -- sad but true -- built into the fabric of the nation. After all, the nation wa a product of a racist era. Not only the South, but the North's economy as well was entangled for much of our early life as a nation.

There were some white slaves held in the Missouri/Mississippi/Ohio river confluencem though. Not trying to argue that slavery wasn't a racial issue -- it surely was -- but saying that like any generalization, that one breaks down on the edges.

I'm sure there are always exceptions to the rule.

My larger point is that because so much effort is put into ignoring the racial issues that helped motivate the civil war and the years that followed, we still live in a legacy or racial tension. As someone raised in the south, you really do become blind to the racial issues because you're taught that things like the civil war weren't really racially motivated and MLK made everything better with the Civil Rights movement and that racism today is because of the blacks and liberals and affirmative action.

I really do cringe in shame when I think of past-BeardedDude

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
30-06-2015, 08:43 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
Right. And one of the "rights" they wanted the states to have was laws allowing people to own other people.

How anyone gets away with denying that baffles me.

From the state of South Carolina's casus belli: "... A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

God does not work in mysterious ways — he works in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.
Jesus had a pretty rough weekend for your sins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes claywise's post
30-06-2015, 08:49 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
I was born in the south but in an area that is kind of a world unto itself. The Outer Banks was so isolated that things were different there. I never picked up on any racism from my aunts, uncles, grandparents, great grandmother or any other of my relatives who had been there for generations.

For a time my grandparents owned The Marlin Club there and my grandmother ran the restaurant. She would allow black men working in the area eat in the kitchen. They were not allowed, by law, to eat in the main dining room but she would not banish them to the back steps to eat their meals as would have happened inland.

I am thankful that the poison of racism wasn't something I was taught even though one side of my family has been in the south since the 1650s. One of my great-great grandfathers was even governor of NC for a time.

But, that's also the reason my experiences in SC were so shocking. The south I knew wasn't the 'real' south as I later learned.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
30-06-2015, 10:09 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(30-06-2015 08:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:35 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Sure. And to that point, the immigrant-based labor pool of the North was racially motivated as well. Racism was indeed -- sad but true -- built into the fabric of the nation. After all, the nation wa a product of a racist era. Not only the South, but the North's economy as well was entangled for much of our early life as a nation.

There were some white slaves held in the Missouri/Mississippi/Ohio river confluencem though. Not trying to argue that slavery wasn't a racial issue -- it surely was -- but saying that like any generalization, that one breaks down on the edges.

I'm sure there are always exceptions to the rule.

My larger point is that because so much effort is put into ignoring the racial issues that helped motivate the civil war and the years that followed, we still live in a legacy or racial tension. As someone raised in the south, you really do become blind to the racial issues because you're taught that things like the civil war weren't really racially motivated and MLK made everything better with the Civil Rights movement and that racism today is because of the blacks and liberals and affirmative action.

I really do cringe in shame when I think of past-BeardedDude

I hear you. What most never realize is that the battle against racism is fought by each individual, on his own small piece of the frontline, and the the enemy is not so much active bigotry, but rather, passive, complacent acceptance of past prejudices.

As Solzhenitsyn wrote, "The line between good and evil runs down the middle of every man's heart." Being good, being right, is a choice, not an instinct. I feel that we as humans are, by dint of the intellect we command in comparison to other animals, we humans are obliged to analyze a situation and cotton to the good.

The choices you and I made when we were younger were too often flawed. Beating yourself up over the foolish thoughts of your own youth strikes me as not only counter-productive, but unjust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
02-07-2015, 12:41 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
I just read the entire Declaration of Succession. I have to be clear here...I find slavery to be morally reprehensible.

Having said that, the Northern states were the ones violating the Constitution. There is a clause in it that all states agree to return anyone under a labor obligation (slaves) to the original state. All states agreed to this. There is also a clause that all criminals will be extradited to the original state. It would be like a state today refusing to extradite a criminal because it didn't agree with the charges. The state cannot do that because it is violating the Constitution. That is what the North did.

South Carolina said in its Declaration that it never would have submitted to the Constitution and become part of the United States without the Constitutional protection of slavery...and that is why it seceded.

I still think the North was right. The Constitution needed to be changed and there is no way the South would ever agree to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ThatAtheistChick's post
02-07-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(02-07-2015 12:41 PM)ThatAtheistChick Wrote:  I just read the entire Declaration of Succession. I have to be clear here...I find slavery to be morally reprehensible.

Having said that, the Northern states were the ones violating the Constitution. There is a clause in it that all states agree to return anyone under a labor obligation (slaves) to the original state. All states agreed to this. There is also a clause that all criminals will be extradited to the original state. It would be like a state today refusing to extradite a criminal because it didn't agree with the charges. The state cannot do that because it is violating the Constitution. That is what the North did.

South Carolina said in its Declaration that it never would have submitted to the Constitution and become part of the United States without the Constitutional protection of slavery...and that is why it seceded.

I still think the North was right. The Constitution needed to be changed and there is no way the South would ever agree to it.

The Northern States were passing laws to try and work around the Federal Law (for instance, Pennsylvania didn't stop officers of the law from shipping back "slaves" to the southern states, but did pass a law that they wouldn't pay for the time the officers spent enforcing that particular federal law).

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
02-07-2015, 01:50 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
My husband and I just had a lengthy conversation about this. He was taught it was about states rights. I was taught it was about slavery. We were both taught the truth. It all depends on your perspective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: