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

[JHC]

Like I said, it is insanity to think 500 thousand men died to because of Slavery and obvious a serious lack of knowledge about the Civil War which is sad.
And to compare Virginians to Germany is repulsive. Especially for Civil war Generals. LEE NEVER FOUGHT to preserve Slavery. Ironically it was Lincoln HIMSELF that wanted LEE to head the UNION ARMY!
LEE turned him down and said he could not go against his family, friends or the State of Virginia which was his homeland. HE NEVER ONCE SAID HE WOULD NOT BECAUSE HE LOVED SLAVERY. What nonsense.

It really appears so many Americans were asleep during American History classes. There are many great books available today that go into great detail about the causes of the Civil war from before the beginning to the battles the people and the slaves. How about doing some actual learning instead of just listening to CNN.

For instance after the Civil War LeeIn August of 1865,r, Lee was invited to serve as president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University), where he and his family are buried. Since his death at age 63 on October 12, 1870, following a stroke, he has retained a place of distinction in most Southern states. He did not get tired for crimes like the German Nazi's at Nuremberg for God sake.

It is not insanity. All it takes is reading the declaration of independence of every Confederate state which mentions defending slavery. All it takes is reading Confederate VP Stephens Cornerstone speech where he says:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."


This "lost cause" malarkey came along later to salvage the conscience. Pure rationalization after the fact during Reconstruction. Economics! State rights! Yeah, the right to own slaves.

[Cheap Shot]

Let's not forget that women were denied the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

You say that like its a bad thing

First we them drive.

Then we let vote

Then we started counting their votes.......

And here we are

[mc1911]

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others
Lincoln


https://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/a...avery-and.html

Just looking at the argument on its face I would say that just because the Union wasn't fighting with the intent to destroy slavery doesn't mean the South wasn't fighting to preserve it.

[Spartan1980]

It is not insanity. All it takes is reading the declaration of independence of every Confederate state which mentions defending slavery. All it takes is reading Confederate VP Stephens Cornerstone speech where he says:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."


This "lost cause" malarkey came along later to salvage the conscience. Pure rationalization after the fact during Reconstruction. Economics! State rights! Yeah, the right to own slaves.

This is pretty much my understanding of it. The cliff notes version of what I was taught in school was that slavery was a contentious issue and came very close to preventing the formation of the union. But both the north and the south finally saw that the greater need was to form said union and that the north knew they had to have the south for its resources to produce war materials, it just wasn't an option if they were to beat the British. So they relented on the slavery thing and decided to fight that fight another day.

[JHC]

This is pretty much my understanding of it. The cliff notes version of what I was taught in school was that slavery was a contentious issue and came very close to preventing the formation of the union. But both the north and the south finally saw that the greater need was to form said union and that the north knew they had to have the south for its resources to produce war materials, it just wasn't an option if they were to beat the British. So they relented on the slavery thing and decided to fight that fight another day.

What strikes me as ironic AF is my HS history - taught in friggin' Wisconsin - taught The Lost Cause Myth right down the line. It took later reading of history long later to learn of the Cornerstone speech and all the rest. My primary history teacher was a young strong left leaning idealist. She loved the Lost Cause story and I have no idea why albeit it was the '70's. Was she swept up by The Band? "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down"? How did that become of counter-culture's take on history? Because it was a negative slant against the blue meanies in Washington DC was my hunch.

[Joe in PNG]

What strikes me as ironic AF is my HS history - taught in friggin' Wisconsin - taught The Lost Cause Myth right down the line. It took later reading of history long later to learn of the Cornerstone speech and all the rest. My primary history teacher was a young strong left leaning idealist. She loved the Lost Cause story and I have no idea why albeit it was the '70's. Was she swept up by The Band? "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down"? How did that become of counter-culture's take on history? Because it was a negative slant against the blue meanies in Washington DC was my hunch.

It's Wealthy Bourgeois Industrialist Republicans vs Poor Proletariat Farmer Democrats

[BJXDS]

So, was the Unions reasons for not wanting the Confederate states to succeed, "State Rights/Slavery" based on the moral issue, or did economics play a key role?

We will never really know for sure, and everyone has their opinion, but it sounds a lot like Gov Northam's argument of semantics about de funding the police. He doesn't look at as defunding but as reform and prioritize funding.

Large populations of white immigrants endured terrible conditions in Northern industrial complex's, which brought about the unions, and that has brought about a huge set of issues we are still dealing with today. The Police Unions come to mind.

It's all about Money, Power and Control, and Money has always provided Power and Control. So what is the answer Anarchy and wealth redistribution?

When this counrty was founded many peoples were wronged, but currently it is still the greatest nation on earth, and we need to find a way to keep it that way.

[whomever]

This is pretty much my understanding of it. The cliff notes version of what I was taught in school was that slavery was a contentious issue and came very close to preventing the formation of the union. But both the north and the south finally saw that the greater need was to form said union and that the north knew they had to have the south for its resources to produce war materials, it just wasn't an option if they were to beat the British. So they relented on the slavery thing and decided to fight that fight another day.

Not an area I'm an expert on, but fun fact: in 1770's Boston about 10% of the households owned slaves (it's mentioned in passing in Philbrick's 'Bunker Hill'). Philbrick doesn't go into the details, but I presume those were people with one or two as cooks or servants. But it makes me suspect that the northern attitudes about slavery might have shifted a lot in the century between, say, 1760 and 1860.

My sense is that maybe anti-slavery sentiment in the 1700's north was just starting to crystallize, while by the mid 1800's northern opinions had swung pretty hard against it, and so the compromise that was acceptable in 1790 was a lot less so in 1860, and you could read the tea leaves that slavery was going to end eventually.

[BehindBlueI's]

Not an area I'm an expert on, but fun fact: in 1770's Boston about 10% of the households owned slaves (it's mentioned in passing in Philbrick's 'Bunker Hill'). Philbrick doesn't go into the details, but I presume those were people with one or two as cooks or servants. But it makes me suspect that the northern attitudes about slavery might have shifted a lot in the century between, say, 1760 and 1860.

My sense is that maybe anti-slavery sentiment in the 1700's north was just starting to crystallize, while by the mid 1800's northern opinions had swung pretty hard against it, and so the compromise that was acceptable in 1790 was a lot less so in 1860, and you could read the tea leaves that slavery was going to end eventually.

Malaria explains a lot of it. You'll note documentation at the time about how Africans were better suited for working "in the tropical sun" then anyone else. White indentured servants and Indian slaves died frequently and early. It was well known that individuals had to be "seasoned" and those who survived the first year or so would survive from then on, but many would die during "seasoning" (exposure to Malaria). The line dividing free states and slave states is also the climate line where mosquitoes, the vector for malaria, can survive year round. Africans survive malaria at much higher rates due to the same genetic difference that leads to sickle cell anemia. Hence African slaves for hot weather work.

Absent that, African slaves made little sense. They were relatively expensive, were not acquainted with European methods of farming, and had every incentive to rebel or flee. European indentured servants were the opposite. The growing nation had tons of unsettled land* and no shortage of Europeans willing to come work for X years in exchange for a land grant on whatever the western frontier at the moment happened to be. They had no incentive to rebel or flee as they had a path to independence in front of them. They were, of course, familiar with European methods of farming and industry, and if they weren't they at least spoke the language and could be taught relatively easily. Expanding the frontiers made the nation stronger, it was a win for every side. If they lived.

Remember pre-America, Florida was considered a punishment assignment by the Spaniards.

*You might have to push a few Indians off, but they didn't consider that "settled".

[Caballoflaco]

Remember pre-air conditioning , Florida was considered a punishment assignment by everybody

Fixed.

I live 4 hours north of the coast and the difference in climate is dramatic. One day on Vacation in August a couple of years ago I decided to walk from the parking area at Perdido key state park in Florida east all the way to the end of they key and back. I didn’t estimate the distance well on my cellphone and ended up doing about 12 miles total on pretty much unwalked beach. My options were to either post-hole up to my knees in the wet sand or walk in the powdery dry stuff.

That long long walk gave me a lot of time to consider and experience first hand just how damned inhospitable that part of our country really was for the first few hundred years of our country’s existence.