Poli-Sci: American Civil War: Slavery or States Rights?

[Baldanders]

Someone was worried this would degenerate into a must-be-locked shitshow.

Instead, in seems like a bunch of folks discussing facts. And one other person doing something else.

This forum is not "most places" on the internet.

Good job, friends.

[10mmfanboy]

The south was paying 80% tariff aka tax, way more than the northern states. They needed slaves because they got tariff aka tax so high they couldn't afford to run plantations and do all the farming otherwise. Even in Lincoln's speech he said he had no intention of freeing slaves in the states that had slavery. War is always about money. They will use anything in an attempt to get the public on their side for starting a war, still do to this day. Banks run the world, not presidents, they fund both sides of war. In fact every election the same president and vice president get put in office, which is the Rothchilds and the Rockefeller's of the world. If slaves were free'd then I didn't get the memo, because I am still a tax slave.

[Gearqueer]

The larger, overall issue was state’s rights, but let’s not minimize the HUGENESS of the issue of slavery.

Search for, and read, the various states’ ordinances of secession. Slavery was very important, to the movers and shakers in the states that allowed slavery.

Presumably, I have ancestors on both sides of the slavery issue, for whatever that is worth. My Texas/Louisiana German ancestors would almost certainly have been anti-slavery, and almost certainly pro-Union. My Anglo/Scottish Texian ancestors had migrated to Texas from the Old South, and so some may have been pro-secession. Most of my ancestors, on my father’s side, were probably far too poor to even dream of owning slaves, and the one that brought my quite rare surname to the USA is said to have immigrated more recently than the Civil War, anyway.

Agreed, and well said.

Anyone who believes that the civil war was not directly about slavery should read South Carolina’s declaration of secession. There is no getting around that document which states the root cause(s) for the civil war more clearly than any other document.

To say that the civil war was not primarily about slavery is to perpetuate an alternate history. This convenient alternate history was created by a segment of society looking for a way to save face in the late 1800’s.

Now that I have changed everyone’s mind who disagrees, I will quietly show myself the door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trigger]

Agreed, and well said.

Anyone who believes that the civil war was not directly about slavery should read South Carolina’s declaration of secession. There is no getting around that document which states the root cause(s) for the civil war more clearly than any other document.

To say that the civil war was not primarily about slavery is to perpetuate an alternate history. This convenient alternate history was created by a segment of society looking for a way to save face in the late 1800’s.

Now that I have changed everyone’s mind who disagrees, I will quietly show myself the door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I disagree. I feel it was more about money, economics, and way of life. Slavery also happened to be a key phrase to describe the southern way of life as opposed to the north. The economics of where the south was legally allowed / forced to sell its trade goods (cotton, tobacco) represents a key struggle with the north. The north wanted the southern states to only be allowed to trade with northern states, and northern merchants could then resell southern goods to Britain and Europe. The south wanted to sell to Europe directly. The south got better prices for their goods that way, The northern merchants strongly opposed that.

[BehindBlueI's]

Slavery also happened to be a key phrase to describe the southern way of life as opposed to the north.

and to describe slavery.

Returning to the original documents linked:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen.

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

n unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-

I don't think any reading could assume "slavery" is shorthand for "southern culture" there.

[Baldanders]

Well, I disagree. I feel it was more about money, economics, and way of life. Slavery also happened to be a key phrase to describe the southern way of life as opposed to the north. The economics of where the south was legally allowed / forced to sell its trade goods (cotton, tobacco) represents a key struggle with the north. The north wanted the southern states to only be allowed to trade with northern states, and northern merchants could then resell southern goods to Britain and Europe. The south wanted to sell to Europe directly. The south got better prices for their goods that way, The northern merchants strongly opposed that.

The struggle was over if new states would be "free" or "slave". When it was clear that " free" was going to dominate, that was the writing on the wall for the plantation owners.

The plantation system kept whites who weren't slave owners poor as dirt, in general. Tariffs certainly affected the south more, because it had virtually no industrial development, a condition the plantation owners romanticized to hide the fact that they didn't want a new class of industrialists (like the hellish north) to supplant them. Virginia had something like 80-90% of the south's industrial capacity, and it was underdeveloped by northern standards.

On top of that, as other posters have demonstrated, the southern leaders sure weren't bitching about tariffs when they seceded.

Your line of argument was formulated post-Reconstruction to demonize the north, and put a halo on the south, so the same old powerful families could re-establish overwhelming dominance and go on in the same aristocratic manner as their forebears, keeping almost everyone (white and black) very poor. That really only started changing in any large way in the 1970s. We still see the effects now.

ETA: most countries trying to build industry did the same thing as the US. "Free trade = freedom " was a 20th Century development.

[Old Virginia]

As someone who didn't write the post you're replying to, I'd like to hear which part of it is crap. Can you identify a false statement in there?


Did Lee take blacks from the North to be slaves during his campaign, and beat his slaves that tried to escape? Yes or no?

Did the Confederates enslave or execute all or nearly all their captured black union soldiers (until the last few months of the war when they were clearly losing)? Yes or no?

Does the Confederate Constitution not mention "negro" slavery? Yes or no?

Did the guy promoting the Confederate flag (I assume we're talking about William Tappan Thompson promoting the flag most people know) say it was about white suppremacy? Yes or no?

Is your IP address in the Ukraine, Russia, or an Eastern European country? Yes or no?

Lol, I am actually getting a good laugh at all your nonsense No I do not live in the Ukraine or Russia etc. I live in Virginia Beach, born in Norfolk, from Parents born in Norfolk whose Grandparents were born in Norfolk and Camden County NC. Went to school at W&M, have visited almost every Battle Field in the state as well as many others. Have been a American History buff since high School and college many years ago.
Again, any one who actually thinks that the war was all about slavery IMO is illiterate. And not to insult you, but the thought of 500,000 men that gave their lives over slaves is so far out there it is incomprehensible. I take it you are African American?
Again, I do not want to discuss the Civil War with you. Discussing how Virginian's feel about their heritage to someone like you is a futile wastes of time. Your Nonsense about Lee etc is so far out there. I know most High School curriculum's to not go much into American History, and that is a shame. And you are a example of that illiteracy.

I highly suggest you do some research and start before the civil war. The Economy, the industrial North vs the Agricultural South. Study the reason why the South wanted to succeed. And it was not about slaves (and again both sides, the North and the South had slaves) What part of that do you not get?
By the way, sorry that you do not even understand about Slavery in all of America not just Virginia. You know nothing about the Export Tariffs, westward expansion and on and on. Start with Bruce Canton, and again Start well before the Civil War actually began. How about learning about how the Northern Soldiers felt about Slaves coming to New York? Tell us about the Riots by whites in NY over slaves entering into the city.
Please tell us why Lincoln issued the Emancipation Act in only the Southern States but not the Northern or border States. Lol, why, was he a racist? Please dying to know. Tell us why the Irish and Italians joined the Northern Armies. If you believe they did so because they hated slavery then, I would say you are even further lost than I believe you are.

We are tired of you tearing down our Monuments, our heritage. Perhaps tearing down the statutes of Martin Luther King, Author Ash would be a good revenge. But we do not do that. We will not lower ourselves the way BLM has. We will not try and burn down the city. Loot, hurt innocent people, advocate killing Police, disrupt political events and on and on.
And in no way will we HONOR a drug infested criminal that was nothing but a cheap thug. I find that so totally disgusting I can hardly speak about it. We had enough of Colin Kerpernick and his spitting on the American Flag and every thing good about this country. This is not about the Civil War, this is about BLM. And that is what your problem is. How about just leaving us alone?

[Medusa]

@Old Virginia

what part of the primary source documents provided for you do you not comprehend ? To borrow your phrase, we are tired of southern apologists whitewashing the actual causes of the war.

[Old Virginia]

Pray, continue the discussion on the American Civil War here:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-States-Rights

Love Shelby Foote. I have all of his works. Recently saw a great documentary featuring him. Hope you have read Bruce Canton's work. Another Great Historian.

Perhaps my all time favorite Historical book on the Civil war is The American Heritage "The CIVIL WAR" by Bruce Canton.

Chapt one "A HOUSE DIVIDE" give a idea of how the Civil war is building up

TWO ECONOMIES is another chapter as well as "The Destruction of Slavery". Yes slavery was a big issue in the civil war for both sides. But that was only one aspect of the war.

Also read anything on Lincoln. There is so much to learn about him and his views on slavery that you do not see in a modern day school room. Not what you think it is.

Clantons "The Civil War" is a must read. Should be mandatory for all school systems. Such a enjoyable informative book. I have read it over so many times. I am lucky to live in Virgina. It is so rich with History. York Town, Williamsburg, all the Battles in and around Richmond, Chesapeake, and on and on. Not mention the Revolutionary war as well.

[Gearqueer]

I highly suggest you do some research and start before the civil war. The Economy, the industrial North vs the Agricultural South. Study the reason why the South wanted to succeed. And it was not about slaves (and again both sides, the North and the South had slaves) What part of that do you not get
?

It’s pretty clear and well documented that during Virginia’s secession convention of 1861 that their states’ right to slavery was a (if not the) core issue. I do agree with you that there were other factors considered to leave the union, but those other reasons were often related to the nation’s trend to isolate and repeal slavery.

Let’s keep things civil.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk