quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
There are libraries full of books and articles relating to this topic so hard to put it in a post.

As much as it was about "slavery" it really was about "power" between the southern slave states and the non-slave states (some of which, just renamed it to become "free") and the expansion of the US.

It was representation, it was State Rights, it was all of it. It is also good to go back to the origination of the US, it was a "Union" of states, not a "Nation" per se. That was the original idea. So as the Federal Government become more powerful, states got angry. South was not the first states to attempt secession.

I understand that it was about power to govern and make laws - but even that relates to slavery, how slaves were counted for representation of slave states in government, and if the federal government would move to abolish slavery.

Also a big topic was expansion of the Union westward and if those states would be "slave" or "free" states, because looking forward that could tip the balance of power in the Federal Government one way or the other.

But the "States's right" that they were most concerned about was slavery in slave states and its enforcement (or lack thereof) of runaway slaves in free states.

Again, it's very hard to see a reason for the US Civil War if you take slavery away and make it a non-issue.

But again, I'm certainly willing to listen to a compelling argument about how that's not the case, simply make it or point me in the right direction to read about it.

If the issue was really slavery, how is it, so many years after slavery has ceased to be a point of contention, we still have very nearly the exact same geographic regions voting the exact same way? The North and South still exist as political entities, and the South still votes predominantly in favor of states' rights while the North continually seeks to increase the influence of the federal government. If slavery was the cause, then these geographic divisions should have disappeared with it. But they didn't. The North-South division of this country is still very present in modern day, and it has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with states' rights.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

Here is the problem with the idea that "slavery was the central premise" of the Civil War. The Union border states all had slavery during and after the civil war.

My question is if slavery wasn't a central reason for the US Civil War, what would have happened if slavery didn't exist then?

What other grievous oppression were the states that seceded from the Union being subjected to that caused them to leave the Union?

High Taxes? Commerce restrictions? Religious liberties? Representation issues?

We still have issues over states' rights today between the North and South without the inclusion of slavery.

quote:

Originally posted by Monk:
If the issue was really slavery, how is it, so many years after slavery has ceased to be a point of contention, we still have very nearly the exact same geographic regions voting the exact same way? The North and South still exist as political entities, and the South still votes predominantly in favor of states' rights while the North continually seeks to increase the influence of the federal government. If slavery was the cause, then these geographic divisions should have disappeared with it. But they didn't. The North-South division of this country is still very present in modern day, and it has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with states' rights.

So slavery had nothing to do with the US Civil War? That's your assertion?

I don't doubt that there is a divide and the issues of states rights are an issue, but I don't see it boiling over to Civil War in 1860 without slavery and the large impacts that abolition would have had on the South.

The South wanted Slavery as a state issue.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
So slavery had nothing to do with the US Civil War? That's your assertion?

I look at slavery as the national topic-du-jour that first challenged a state's right to regulate something for themselves. This challenge was deemed serious enough for 13 states to collectively attempt to secede and govern themselves without Federal Government interference.

In the future, the topic-du-jour might be a state's right to drill for oil & natural gas or mine minerals. Or water rights, which has in fact became a recent issue over the last few years as the EPA grew to be so powerful as to propose regulating streams, ditches and any surface water (permanent or temporary) on private property. Or it might be a state's right to implement the 2nd Amendment as they see fit. Envision a scenario where concealed/open carry laws in Texas become negated because Congress eventually has enough votes to impose their version of gun control throughout the country. As Icabod said above, slavery was the abortion issue of the time. There will be other issues in the future where the US Govt will challenge the individual states to govern themselves as they see fit. This will become more probable as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other socialists like her get elected to Washington.

Slavery, as abhorrent as it is, was just the payload of the truck labeled "States Rights". So whether it is slavery, abortion, mineral rights, water rights or gun rights, it really is all about who's right is is to regulate an activity, the State's or the Federal Government's.

That's how I see it, anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:


My question is if slavery wasn't a central reason for the US Civil War, what would have happened if slavery didn't exist then?

What other grievous oppression were the states that seceded from the Union being subjected to that caused them to leave the Union?

High Taxes? Commerce restrictions? Religious liberties? Representation issues?

Slavery was an issue, but like most history, it's written largely by the victors and often agreed upon by no one.

Ask a southerner, there was no civil war, only a "war of northern aggression." Ask everyone else, it was a civil war.

We look at slavery as bad, and it is. The US would never have gained the territory it did, or had the necessary wealth without it; we couldn't have become a country as we are without slavery, and we can't be the country we are and tolerate it: we're founded on equals.

It's very true that the founding fathers had slaves, which were found throughout the north and south. From the north's perspective, slavery was not the reason for the developing tensions or for the war; in fact slavery was to be ended as a way of cutting the legs out from under the south, rather than for altruistic humanitarian reasons (let's face it, we still had segregation through latter part of the last century).

From the souther perspective, the north was attempting to usurp rights and authority that naturally belonged to the states. From the northern perspective, the south was attempting to cut the nation in two, and to destroy the united states, which they were. History books paint the war as fought over slavery, and it wasn't; it was fought over economics and state sovereignty, and was a constitutional crisis.

It was the confederacy which made slavery the cornerstone of the confederacy; the war wasn't fought on that point, but it was considered such a vital component of the economy as to be the central theme upon which they based their new government.

If equality was really the point of the war (it wasn't), why then did we perpetuate inequality as a nationally accepted institution for more than another century after the war ended?

As to the question of whether the war would have been fought had slavery not existed, the simple answer is yes, because the war wasn't fought over slavery. Lincoln made that a selling point. The war was fought over secession. New Orleans was the economic powerhouse, the wealthy shipping port, and the trading point for the nation's primary exports and imports; it wasn't until much later that New York became a key funnel point for the nations trade and wealth. At the time, the south had the wealth, which was largely agricultural, and they intended to take it with, over constitutional disagreement. It could be argued that the war wouldn't have been fought without slavery, but not because slavery was the focal point: it's because without slavery, the south wouldn't have had the agricultural production or capability that they did, and the balance of power and wealth would have been substantially different.

The problem with current reading of history for that era regarding the civil war is that it's incomplete and out of context without examining the agricultural history of the time, and that's not something that's really covered in most texts. It's worth researching, however, because an understanding of agricultural history fills in a lot of gaps.

Someone asked where I'm from and where raised: all over. Literally.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:....because the war wasn't fought over slavery. ....The war was fought over secession.....

Bingo!

As stated earlier, the right to invade the south at the cost of 650,000 lives was based on ..."to form a more perfect Union..." That is literally what legal scholars point to that forbids states from secession.

Oddly enough, Jefferson Davis found out that the autonomy of the states did not really work when fighting a war. Were the North had a central command of all troops, the south did not, not until the very end. Each state dictated where its army would go. Davis, I believe, finally "federalized" the troops, but by then the gig was up.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
Lillie by little, history is being erased so that in due time we can get to repeating it...

when do we get to the part about shooting people and watering the tree of Liberty??

If the SDNY attempts to indict the President, or the fascists in Congress attempt to impeach him, I think we may see the good citizens of this country revolt.



.

Depends what is on TV that week, the majority of the US are too fat, happy and complacent (or maybe it's too busy supporting their families) to do anything beyond cussing at the TV

Now I would agree that 2020 would be a very bad year for the progs as people are whipped into a frenzy regarding the impeachment

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Someone asked where I'm from and where raised: all over. Literally.

Someone?

Bruh man, you'd better figure it out.

And your answer is no answer at all. You weren't born "all over". You were born in one single, very specific location, and you may have lived many places, but you did not live "all over".

I asked you a simple question. I'd like an answer.

I figured it out. You did. Para asked.

I don't provide personal details online. Ever. That's my answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:....because the war wasn't fought over slavery. ....The war was fought over secession.....

Bingo!

As stated earlier, the right to invade the south at the cost of 650,000 lives was based on ..."to form a more perfect Union..." That is literally what legal scholars point to that forbids states from secession.

So war was over secession, secession was over states rights, the state right being slavery.

So try as you might, slavery is in there. Unless there is some other State Right hidden from view.

quote:

Oddly enough, Jefferson Davis found out that the autonomy of the states did not really work when fighting a war.

I found that interesting too, as Davis had to twist states arms to provide more troops, get supplies, etc, etc.

And the states would cry 'oppression, tyranny!'.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
So war was over secession, secession was over states rights, the state right being slavery.

So try as you might, slavery is in there. Unless there is some other State Right hidden from view.

Here is the contradiction to that argument. Union states still had slavery during and after the war. So had it been about "slavery" you would think that the North would have been slave free at the start. As stated New Jersey just renamed slavery and kept it going. Who knows how long states would have had "apprentices for life".

This war was the culmination of the Federalists vs the Democratic-Republicans. There were lots of powers that the DR's wanted for the states that the Federalists wanted for the Fed government. Had it not been "slaves" it would have been something else. Taxes probably, or trade or even military spending.

Oddly, had the South not split off, slavery (in the form of apprentice for life) may have been around for many more years. The fact that Lincoln knew, during the war, he did not have the votes for the 13th amendment, and the emancipation proclamation only freed the southern slaves tells you something of the support (or lack there of) in the north to end servitude completely.

So, sure, simple answer, Slavery was the reason for the civil war but the real reasons go back to the Continental Congress and is much more convoluted. Dont forget prior to the Southern states secession, there had been a few other secession attempts by other states for, basically, "state rights" issues, War of 1812 and the look up the Alien and Sedition Acts (been forever since i really study that stuff)

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
I figured it out. You did. Para asked.

Don't play games with me. You know what you can do with this "someone" horse shit. You'd be better off just ignoring the question altogether.

quote:

So, sure, simple answer, Slavery was the reason for the civil war but the real reasons go back to the Continental Congress and is much more convoluted. Dont forget prior to the Southern states secession, there had been a few other secession attempts by other states for, basically, "state rights" issues, War of 1812 and the look up the Alien and Sedition Acts (been forever since i really study that stuff)

Of course it's complicated, Lincoln made compromises - and IMO the "It was ONLY about slavery" crowd is just a wrong as "It wasn't about slavery AT ALL" crowd. It was about so many things left unsettled from the founding of the country and maybe it would have been triggered by something else, but it wasn't. With the election of Lincoln and losing the House, the Southern states figured the gig was up and it was time to secede instead of waiting to see more non-slave states created and slavery abolished (although I think it would have been many more years in coming).

Obviously succession was settled by the application of force and violence over 4 bloody years, during which slavery continued to be a developing issue that cost the CSA potential foreign support / recognition.

Back OT, I could really give a frack if that plaque stays up, because I'm unconvinced by the argument that it advocates when it was put in up 1959.

It's not historic or some great memorial or statue (which I think should be left alone or at a minimum preserved / moved to a historical venue).

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:...
Back OT, I could really give a frack if that plaque stays up, because I'm unconvinced by the argument that it advocates when it was put in up 1959.

It's not historic or some great memorial or statue (which I think should be left alone or at a minimum preserved / moved to a historical venue).

My exact sentiments when it comes to this stuff. Anything put up in the late 50' early 60's, as it pertains to the Civil War can stay or go. Nothing historical about it.

BTW, fun discussing this topic with you!

No sense burying history. Besides, it still shocks and amazes Yankees when they learn Texans fought and stood with the south. "Like...you were confederates?"

Haha

It was the violation of our laws (yes, over slavery) that started the ball rolling. Most folks in the south didn't fight for slavery, in fact, Lincoln didn't toss out the Emancipation Proclamation till after the war had been raging hard for 2 years. AND the proclamation didn't free the slaves, only the slaves in the south. All the Northern slaves still got to be slaves.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
sns3guppy

quote:

The civil war is far more than black and white, and it wasn't fought over slavery, though it was a political hot issue. Slavery was, however, the "cornerstone," and founding premise of the confederacy.

The war was fought because the south attempted to secede and destroy the country, and the north saw it as not only an act of treason, but the loss of the bulk of the national value; the economic base of the nation at the time was found in the south.

There will always be opposing views, but to assert that the confederacy's underlying cause was not to sustain slavery is a bald faced lie, and denies the central premise of the confederacy: to ensure that the black man was recognized as inferior, and to protect the institution of slavery. It's quite clear in the cornerstone speech.

Here is the problem with the idea that "slavery was the central premise" of the Civil War. The Union border states all had slavery during and after the civil war. New Jersey just reclassified slaves as "apprenticed for life" and that did not end until the 13th Amendment. I do believed Delaware never did sign/ratify the 13th Amendment.

And I do hope you know that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" the Southern slaves, not the slaves in the Union boarder states or anywhere else in the Union. Also, read Lincoln's letters in which he shares the common (albeit incorrect) belief, of that period, that blacks were inferior to whites. Those letters dont come up a lot in conversation......

Articles of Confederacy specifically forbid secession for the Union but the Constitution did not. Legal scholars, siding with the North, point to the "...a more perfect union..." clause as where secession was not allowed. 620,000 people died based on that clause. Weak sauce as they say.

And I really dont have a dog in this fight, my Great Great Grandfather was a blacksmith for the Union army.

And my mother tells of meals at their table when she was a kid where her grandfather had to be fed by someone else. His arms were paralyzed from his time in confederate POW camp. They hung him by his thumbs (reason unknown) resulting in paralysis.

Brutality to POWs is nothing new.

The civil war had been raging on the Kansas/Missouri border for near on 6 years before SC attacked Fort Sumpter in 1861. At one point @ 1856 or so, John Brown, his grown kids and some other anti-slave assholes were going door to door to home they knew didn't agree with them and systematically dragging the man of the house out to the front lawn and executing him in front of wife and kids.

Yeah, ISIS had nothing on some of those folks. That's one more reason they executed that fanatic when they finally did catch up with him at Harpers Ferry.

Pre-confederacy the powers that be were NOT enforcing the laws on the books and had not been doing so for years, and a whole bunch of folks felt angry and alienated by that. THAT'S what caused it. Sadly, the death toll was massive.

https://www.britannica.com/eve...nited-States-history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...n_%28abolitionist%29

quote:

Originally posted by jimb888:
The civil war had been raging on the Kansas/Missouri border for near on 6 years before SC attacked Fort Sumpter in 1861.

What were they fighting over before the war?

"Bleeding Kansas, (1854–59), small civil war in the United States, fought between proslavery and antislavery advocates for control of the new territory of Kansas under the doctrine of popular sovereignty (q.v.). Sponsors of the Kansas–Nebraska Act (May 30, 1854) expected its provisions for territorial self-government to arrest the “torrent of fanaticism” that had been dividing the nation regarding the slavery issue. Instead, free-soil forces from the North formed armed emigrant associations to populate Kansas, while proslavery advocates poured over the border from Missouri."


Hmmm, fighting over slavery, ahem or maybe it was states rights?

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Hmmm, fighting over slavery, ahem or maybe it was states rights?

Better example of the Federal Government's over-reaching would be the storied history of the Utah territory to Statehood and the 1st Amendment.

Reckon that Bush boy will go after The Bonnie Blue next?