 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / War History / US Civil War / October 2006Was that the real cause?
Dear Group, Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then again many say that it was fought over States Rights. My question is, what do you think is the correct answer? Or is either of the answers correct? I am asking this because, slavery existed in this country for over 200 years prior to the Civil War. Not once did a Confederate flag fly over a flag ship. So who is really to blame for those men, women, and children being in bondage? However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer economically sound to keep slaves, wouldn't slavery been a thing of the past before to long? Was the North really fighting to preserve the Union? Were they really fighting to free those in bondage? What about Lincoln's plan to colonize those in bondage in a different country, would it have worked? What do you think? Nate > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer > economically sound to keep slaves, When did this happen? The evidence is overwhelming that secession occurred because of slavery. Check out the documents archive at http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html JFE I'd say the proof is in the pudding... Of the major political and social issues from 1820 to 1860, slavery was the primary motivator in over half (and virtually all in the 1850s) and secondary in most others. Here's a list of such issues, with the 'slavery premier' ones asterisked. I'd say none are 'slavery-free' issues. Feel free to add other major issues I have excluded... Clay's American System *Missouri Compromise of 1820 The tariff and Nullification Crisis Manifest Destiny and westward migration Industrial revolution Mexican War Social reform *Fugitive Slave Act *Compromise of 1850 *Publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin *Split of religious denominations *Kansas-Nebraska Act *Dred Scott Case By the 1850s, a sectional fire, fueled by slavery, is burning in the country. I'm only answering your first papargraph's questions. I suspect the final 3 are leading to pre-conceived conclusions ;) HankC > Dear Group, > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Nate > Dear Group, > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > years prior to the Civil War. Not once did a Confederate flag fly over a > flag ship. I assume you mean "slave ship" in the last sentence above. No slave ship ever flew such a flag because the CSA had a very limited naval capacity and for its entire existence the CSA was fighting for that existence. What supplies did come in from the sea came via blockade runners, which were usually small fast ships not well suited to shipping large amounts of human cargo. So who is really to blame for those men, women, and children > being in bondage? Perhaps the people holding them in bondage? Nobody held a gun to Jeff Davis' head and forced him to buy, sell or own slaves. Nathan Bedford Forrest had worked as a slave dealer, but nobody held a gun to his head and said he must do so and he could have found other employment. Nobody forced the southerners to press for a gag order in Congress that prevented any open debate on the restriction and ending of slavery. Nobody forced southern states to pass legislation making it a crime to publicly speak in favor of abolition or make it a crime to send abolitionist literature through the mail. Nobody forced southerners to form or join "filibuster" expeditions to try to capture more territory to expand slavery. Nobody forced Senator Albert Gallatin Brown of Mississippi to say "I want Cuba, and I know that sooner or later we must have it. I want Tamalipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." Nobody forced the Confederates to put the following into the Confederate Constitution: Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government." (credits to Jim Epperson's website) No one forced the future Vice President of the CSA, Alexander Stephens, to say in his Cornerstone Speech that "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to the superior race-is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer > economically sound to keep slaves, wouldn't slavery been a thing of the past > before to long? When, exactly, did this revelation come along? Are you aware that Lincoln proposed compensated emancipation to representatives of the loyal border states during the war and was turned down flat, despite the evidence that the war was going to spell the end of the institution? >Was the North really fighting to preserve the Union? Absolutely beyond all doubt. Speeches, newspapers, personal correspondence and personal diaries are replete with phrases about preserving the Union. Were > they really fighting to free those in bondage? True to a lesser extent. Many men went to war with that as one of their motives, and many more came to see that as a goal of the war as it progressed. And of course the Republican platform called for restricting and eventually ending slavery. > What about Lincoln's plan to colonize those in bondage in a different > country, would it have worked? What do you think? Couldn't have worked. There were way too many (several million) that would need to be shipped out and there was no way that there was anywhere near the capacity needed to do so, nor the money available to pay for it. Lincoln ultimately dropped the colonization plan when he realized during discussions with Frederick Douglass that the slaves and freedmen considered America their home (that vast majority had been born and raised here) and did not want to leave it. > Nate > Dear Group, > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then > again many say that it was fought over States Rights. My question is, what > do you think is the correct answer? Per the words of the slave south the only state's right at hazard was the right to own and treat as property other human beings. It was the slave south's desire to protect slavery from what it imagined as a threat from an incoming "Black Republican" administration that brought secession, and it was secession/rebellion that brought the north to fight to preserve the Union. snip > I am asking this because, slavery existed in this country for over 200 > years prior to the Civil War. Not once did a Confederate flag fly over a > flag ship. But the Confederate flag flew over slavery every day that the Confederacy existed. > So who is really to blame for those men, women, and children > being in bondage? The slave south cleaved to slavery and argued to expand slavery long after the north and the rest of the western world gave it up. > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer > economically sound to keep slaves, wouldn't slavery been a thing of the past > before to long? When did the slave south start to recognize that slavery was no longer an economic benefit? Who in the slave south said so? How about the fact that slavery was the only way that white southerners could see as a means of social control of blacks? > Was the North really fighting to preserve the Union? Yep. > Were > they really fighting to free those in bondage? Starting with the Confiscation Acts and going through the Emancipation Proclaimation freeing slaves was a war measure designed to weaken the Confederacy. A total end to slavery had always been a war aim for some in the north, and it became a war aim for nearly all. > What about Lincoln's plan to colonize those in bondage in a different > country, would it have worked? No, which is part of the reason why Lincoln abandoned it. > > Dear Group, > > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > No, which is part of the reason why Lincoln abandoned it. The real cause was the same exact reason the US left England earlier. States rights. Less than 5% of the Southerners owned slaves. And that was the rich people that did not fight the war. Most Yanks never admit, or are ashamed that many Northern states had slaves. Most Yanks dont even teach in their schools that even William Penn was a slave owner. Why did the Northern Army invade the south who wanted to be left alone? Isnt this the same Army/Country that right after the war, also tried to eliminate the Indians including murdering woman and children. Every New World colony was, in some sense, a slave colony. French Canada, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Cuba, Brazil -- all of them made their start in an economic system built upon slavery based on race. In all of them, slavery enjoyed the service of the law and the sanction of religion. In all of them the master class had its moments of doubt, and the slaves plotted to escape or rebel. Over time, slavery flourished in the Upper South and failed to do so in the North. But there were pockets of the North on the eve of the Revolution where slaves played key roles in the economic and social order: New York City and northern New Jersey, rural Pennsylvania, and the shipping towns of Connecticut and Rhode Island. Black populations in some places were much higher than they would be during the 19th century. More than 3,000 blacks lived in Rhode Island in 1748, amounting to 9.1 percent of the population; 4,600 blacks were in New Jersey in 1745, 7.5 percent of the population; and nearly 20,000 blacks lived in New York in 1771, 12.2 percent of the population. The North failed to develop large-scale agrarian slavery, such as later arose in the Deep South, but that had little to do with morality and much to do with climate and economy. > Less than 5% of the Southerners owned slaves. And that was the rich > people that did not fight the war. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > arose in the Deep South, but that had little to do with morality and > much to do with climate and economy. all those northern states abolished slavery by the early 19th century. quoting numbers from the 18th century 120years before the civil war is meaningless. after all the threads you have started you have just posted the same discredited "facts" you posted in your first post. the fact is the southern econmy was based on slavery and even non-owners were dependent on it. the rich duped the poor into the war. and many rich such as wade hampton and nathan bedford forrest did join up. The wealth of the South was concentrated in the hands of around a thousand families. These large landowners would usually own well over 100 slaves and relied heavily on overseers to run their plantations. In 1850 it was estimated that these thousand families had an income of about $50,000,000 while the remaining 660,000 families received only $60,000,000. > > > Dear Group, > > > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Less than 5% of the Southerners owned slaves. But that was not including their children, spouses, and other close relations. Nor did it include those such as overseers, slave dealers, slave hunters, and similar such whose livelihoods somehow were related to or dependent upon slavery. And that was the rich > people that did not fight the war. A lot of those rich people sent sons off to join the army. And of course a lot of those rich people ran the Confederate government and were more than happy to draft those non-slaveholders into the army to fight for them. > Most Yanks never admit, or are ashamed that many Northern states had > slaves. Oh? Can you name some names? I've never seen anyone here deny it. And certainly for a fact the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery in a fair number of northern states, as did the Missouri Compromise. Those remaining states that already had slavery had abolished it decades before the Civil War. That's not including the "border states" of Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri that remained loyal, of course. > Most Yanks dont even teach in their schools that even William Penn was > a slave owner. Can you demonstrate that this is a commonly taught fact in southern schools? > Why did the Northern Army invade the south who wanted to be left alone? If they'd wanted to be left alone, they should have abided by the results of a free and fair democratic election, instead of seizing federal properties at gunpoint and firing at US soldiers. > Isnt this the same Army/Country that right after the war, also tried to > eliminate the Indians including murdering woman and children. You may have missed my earlier post regarding the Seminole Wars, Trail of Tears, and Creek War, among others, that all occurred in the south prior to the Civil War. Prejudice and abuse against the Native American knew no North/South limitations. > Every New World colony was, in some sense, a slave colony. French > Canada, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Cuba, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > arose in the Deep South, but that had little to do with morality and > much to do with climate and economy. And yet the south fought tooth and nail against Douglas' idea of "Popular Sovereignty" and had a proslavery constitution more or less rammed down the throats of the population of Kansas, where according to most who buy into such arguments slavery was not likely to flourish. Can you perhaps explain why? > States rights. First, let's get our terminology right. There aint no such animals as "states rights." That would imply rights belonging to some collective of states. It was the rights supposedly held by an individual state... no matter if the national government and every other state disagreed... that the purist "state's rights" folks insisted upon. What state right do you think was at hazard in 1860-1861? >Less than 5% of the Southerners owned slaves. Hmm. What exactly does this mean?" Who, in 1860, was "a Southerner"? The fire-eating secession advocates defined it as anyone living in a slave state. There were 394,967 slaveowners in the 15 slave states in 1860. The population of the 15 slave states was 12,240,293. 394,967 / 12,240,293 = 3.2% However, the population of the slave states included a lot of people who could not own slaves because they _were_ slaves: 3,950,511. Another 250,787 were free blacks. That leaves 8,036,700 whites. 394,967 / 8,036,700 = 4.9% (There were a _few_ free blacks who owned slaves - maybe 2,500 altogether.) But... half of all white "Southerners" were female, and in the 1800s few women owned much of anything in their own names. For married couples, the husband owned everything. Slaveowning widows and spinsters may have numbered as many as 20,000, but not more. A generous estimate would be that there were 35,000 slaveowners who were free blacks and women, leaving 360,000 white male slaveowners. There were 4,139,921 Southern white males. 360,000 / 4,139,921 = 8.7%, not 5%. Furthermore, of those 4.1 million or so Southern white males, 2.2 million were boys under 20 years of age. Very few boys owned property in their own names. So - there were 1.9 million adult white men, of whom 360,000 were slaveowners. That's 19%, not 5%. But wait - the great majority of whites in the Border States were pro-Union. In this area there were 634,000 adult white men and 84,000 slaveowners. Let's assume that none of these were free blacks or women. That leaves about 275,000 slaveowners among 1.3 million white men: 21%. We aren't done yet, though. Even in the "Confederate" states, there were regions where most of the men were pro-Union, such as eastern Tennessee and West Virginia. These were also the areas where there were relatively few slaves and slaveowners. For instance, the Virginia counties that became Virginia had 34% of the white population of Virginia, but only 7% of the slaveholders and less than 4% of the slaves. Thus the pro-secession area of Virginia had proportionally seven times more slaveowners among its white population. This pattern was repeated in east Tennessee, in west North Carolina, and in parts of Arkansas and Alabama, too. Among the white men of "the South" who actually supported secession, then, the proportion of slaveowners was somewhere around 25% to 30%. And of the remainder, a large portion were the dependent sons, nephews, brothers, cousins, and in-laws of slaveowners. | He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less | | flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante | | never conceived that such a thing was possible. | | -- William Goldman, _Heat_ | >The real cause was the same exact reason the US left England earlier. > >States rights. Read the Cornerstone Speech, for starters. The only right the CSA acted to protect was the right of property in slaves. >Less than 5% of the Southerners owned slaves. And that was the rich >people that did not fight the war. In the same way that ownership of homes is a fairly small percent now. the figure neglects the fact that for each owner there were half a dozen or more individuals in his household on average who were directly invovled. A more pertinent figure is the percentage of heads of household owning slaves. That was 4-7 times the one you quoted. >Most Yanks never admit, or are ashamed that many Northern states had >slaves. Nearly all the northern slave owners were long dead in 1860. The north had removed slavery around the turn of the century. >Most Yanks dont even teach in their schools that even William Penn was >a slave owner. Strange, that fact was part of my education, in a very pro union state, Kansas. >Why did the Northern Army invade the south who wanted to be left alone? You cannot invade your own country. The north moved to suppress an illegal combination acting in rebellion against the legal authorities who claimed to be a seperate nation and who had acted violently in seizing federal property and attempting to harm federal personell. This is not only an entirely legal act by the Federal government, but is required of them by law. >Isnt this the same Army/Country that right after the war, also tried to >eliminate the Indians including murdering woman and children. No. This is the same country whose officers testified in Congress against ill advised acts of the Indian Bureau and then saw the same officers forced to move against Indian groups engaged in violations of treaty. The US vs Indian conflicts are far more complex than you seem to think and are not one sided in placing blame. Much of the blame lies with the misunderstandings on both sides. And is not relevant to the discussion of the ACW. >Every New World colony was, in some sense, a slave colony. French >Canada, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Cuba, >Brazil -- all of them made their start in an economic system built upon >slavery based on race. In all of them, slavery enjoyed the service of >the law and the sanction of religion. In all of them the master class >had its moments of doubt, and the slaves plotted to escape or rebel. >Over time, slavery flourished in the Upper South and failed to do so in >the North. But there were pockets of the North on the eve of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Jersey in 1745, 7.5 percent of the population; and nearly 20,000 blacks >lived in New York in 1771, 12.2 percent of the population. >The North failed to develop large-scale agrarian slavery, such as later >arose in the Deep South, but that had little to do with morality and >much to do with climate and economy. You need to realize that the North was NOT acting to suppress slavery in 1860, but to contain it. They offered no threat to the institution save by that restriction. Abolition was already off the table unless by STATE action. And yet the South, in it's statements on secession's cause, cited threats to the contiuation of slavery as the ONLY consistent reason for secession. The war started over the South's paranoia on slavery and the Unions desire to preserve the rule of law and hence the Union itself. Suppression of slavery only became a tool of fighting the secession and rebellion as the rebellion was centered in the slaveholder class. Hence the reason some of us call the war the Slaveholders Rebellion of 1860. Wes Taylor > Dear Group, > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then > again many say that it was fought over States Rights. what right was being violated? My question is, what > do you think is the correct answer? Or is either of the answers correct? > I am asking this because, slavery existed in this country for over 200 > years prior to the Civil War. Not once did a Confederate flag fly over a > flag ship. So who is really to blame for those men, women, and children > being in bondage? the states that became the confederacy were the ones buying the slaves. the color of the flag doesn't change that. it was their perception that slavery was being threatened that caused them to reate the confederte flag. > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer > economically sound to keep slaves, wouldn't slavery been a thing of the past > before to long? if they "realized" slavery was no longer feasible why did they start the war to protect it? Was the North really fighting to preserve the Union? yes., many make the common mistake in thinking that since the south started the war to protect slavery the union's motivation was to end slavery. emancipation was a war measure. or they take the tack that since the union was fighting to preserve the union then the war couldn't have been about slavery. Were > they really fighting to free those in bondage? > What about Lincoln's plan to colonize those in bondage in a different > country, would it have worked? What do you think? that pan was floated and dropped. it only has life because confederate sympathizers think they can discredit lincoln by bringing it up and blowing it up into a real plan.. > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer > economically sound to keep slaves, wouldn't slavery been a thing of the past > before to long? Was the North really fighting to preserve the Union? Were > they really fighting to free those in bondage? Most white northern folk did not give a hoot or a damn for the welfare of black folks. What they did not want, was to see the territories become slave economies. They were rooting for free labor, not slave labor as a matter of economic concern, not moral concern. Had slavery been purged from the South by economic realities, you may be as sure as you can be steps would be taken to insure that blacks remained the social inferiors of whites. > What about Lincoln's plan to colonize those in bondage in a different > country, would it have worked? What do you think? If it had succeeded you would be mugged in Central Park after dark by a white man, not a black man. Bob Kolker > > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer > > economically sound to keep slaves, wouldn't slavery been a thing of the past [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Bob Kolker Here is Abe Lincoln 'Hero to the Northerners' answer to the question... "The war is being fought for Union, not slavery". > Here is Abe Lincoln 'Hero to the Northerners' answer to the > question... > > "The war is being fought for Union, not slavery". That is a true statement. It was being fought for Union which is to say, to put down the secesh. Secession is treason when done by means of war. If Congress (minus southron votes) had permitted the Southron States to depart, it would have been legal and there would have been no war. Bob Kolker > Here is Abe Lincoln 'Hero to the Northerners' answer to the > question... > > "The war is being fought for Union, not slavery". and the southern reason as stated by alexander h stephens the vice president of the CSA "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture " the south started the war. so the reasons for the war are their reasons. you make the common mistake of most southerners in equating the north's motive in fighting for the south's in starting the war. > Dear Group, > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then > again many say that it was fought over States Rights. My question is, what > do you think is the correct answer? Or is either of the answers correct? ---------------------- A little more intellectual rigor is required. First, the secession of the lower south was driven by the protection of slavery. They perceived the incoming Lincoln administration to be a direct threat to slavery and that's why they seceded. State rights was merely the ideological sleight of hand they used to try to claim their illegal act was legal. The upper south let it be known that they were awaiting a peaceful resolution of the crisis, and in the event it could not be peacefully resolved, they would side with the slave states. In other words, protection of slavery, while not as strong a motivator for the upper south as for the lower south, still motivated the upper south. Knowing this, Jefferson Davis started the war by ordering the firing on Fort Sumter, attempting to get the upper south and the border states into the confederacy. He was successful in getting the upper south to join the confederacy but unsuccessful in getting the border states. To decide what the war was fought for, we have to remember there were two sides, and the two sides didn't fight for the same thing. The confederacy fought to achieve its independence in order to protect slavery. For the confederacy, then, the war was fought ultimately to protect slavery. The Federals initially fought solely to preserve the Union. As the war continued, though, they began to realize that there would never be a true peace as long as slavery was maintained. After the Final Emancipation Proclamation was released, the Union began to fight against slavery as well, and by 1864 destruction of slavery became a Union war objective. So for the Federals, initially the war for them was only about preserving the Union. Eventually, though, it became about preserving the Union and destroying slavery. > I am asking this because, slavery existed in this country for over 200 > years prior to the Civil War. -------------------------------- The country was less than 200 years old, but slavery had existed for over 200 years on the continent if we go back prior to the formation of the United States. In the 85 years prior to the start of the war that the United States existed, no president had come into office on an antislavery platform pledging to halt the expansion of slavery. No president had been elected from an antislavery party. No president had been deemed a threat to the existence of slavery. Lincoln was the first. Not once did a Confederate flag fly over a > flag ship. ------------------------- I assume you mean a slave ship. That is an irrelevant point, since the legal slave trade was ended in 1807, and the vast majority of slave ships were European anyway. So who is really to blame for those men, women, and children > being in bondage? ------------------------- In the United States it would be the people who bought them and kept them in bondage. > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer > economically sound to keep slaves, wouldn't slavery been a thing of the past > before to long? ---------------------------- Factually incorrect. It was very sound economically to keep slaves. Slavery was a very profitable venture and was a growing concern in the south. There was a labor shortage and slaves were in such high demand that slave prices were at an all-time high on the eve of the war. They would not have given up slavery voluntarily. Was the North really fighting to preserve the Union? Were > they really fighting to free those in bondage? --------------------------- Depends on what part of the war you're looking at. See the above. > What about Lincoln's plan to colonize those in bondage in a different > country, would it have worked? What do you think? ---------------------------- What about it? It wouldn't have worked because very few African Americans wanted to leave, and Lincoln's colonization plan was strictly voluntary. Lincoln eventually realized this and by June of 1864 had dropped the idea. Regards, Cash > The Federals initially fought solely to preserve the Union. As the > war continued, though, they began to realize that there would never be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was only about preserving the Union. Eventually, though, it became > about preserving the Union and destroying slavery. I don't have any problem with your analysis, but one thing I am wondering, did at some point the war in the north come to be about "regime change", aka reconstruction? scott s. > > The Federals initially fought solely to preserve the Union. As the > > war continued, though, they began to realize that there would never be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > scott s. -------------------- Lincoln started thinking about reconstruction fairly early. Recall his 10% plan. Obviously it would involve a regime change. I don't believe regime change in and of itself was a war goal, but one can speculate it was understood that a regime change would result. Regards, Cash >I don't have any problem with your analysis, but one thing I am >wondering, did at some point the war in the north come to be about >"regime change", aka reconstruction? April 15, 1861. At that date, the state governments in the Confederacy (and all officials in them) became accomplices in a violent rebellion against the United States. The policy of the United States of the United States was to abolish the "Confederate government" and restore the authority of the United States in those states where the state government had claimed to have abolished it. Had those state governments withdrawn this claim, dissolved the "Confederacy", and made submission to the United States before 4/15/1861, it is probable that these governments would have been permitted to continue in operation, on the principle of "no harm, no foul". After 4/15/1861, the abolition of the Confederacy required the overthrow of the secessionist regimes in the "Confederate states"; the officers of these governments having acted in support of a rebellion now made actual, they were all criminals. There was not much serious thinking ahead to after the victory in the Union at this time, but IMO there was no question that after the rebellion was put down, the state governments would have to be 'reconstructed'. For instance, the loyal legislators of Virginia, meeting in 1861, declared all the state offices vacated and chose replacements - "Reconstruction" in the midst of the war. In Missouri, similar actions were taken against secessionist governor Claiborne Jackson and his associates. | He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less | | flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante | | never conceived that such a thing was possible. | | -- William Goldman, _Heat_ | > >I don't have any problem with your analysis, but one thing I am > >wondering, did at some point the war in the north come to be about [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > | never conceived that such a thing was possible. | > | -- William Goldman, _Heat_ | General U.S. Grant owned slaves (his wifes slaves) and didnt free them until after the Emancipation Proclaimation. So it certainly wasnt about freeing the slaves. > General U.S. Grant owned slaves (his wifes slaves) and didnt free them > until after the Emancipation Proclaimation. So it certainly wasnt about > freeing the slaves. ------------------------ Julia Grant had use of four of her father's slaves, but there is no evidence they belonged to her. If they remained the property of Col. Dent, which is reasonable since Grant was on record as saying if he ever got control of those slaves he would free them, then neither Grant nor Julia would have the authority to free them. Additionally, I refer you to my previous post. Destroying slavery didn't become a Federal war objective until after the EP. Prior to the EP the Federals had only one war objective, preserving the Union. The confederacy, on the other hand, sought their independence in order to protect slavery. That was their goal for the entire war. Regards, Cash > > General U.S. Grant owned slaves (his wifes slaves) and didnt free them > > until after the Emancipation Proclaimation. So it certainly wasnt about [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Regards, > Cash Many union soldiers also owned slaves. > > Julia Grant had use of four of her father's slaves, but there is no > > evidence they belonged to her. If they remained the property of Col. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Many union soldiers also owned slaves. ------------- Irrelevant to why the confederacy fought the war. Regards, Cash > Many union soldiers also owned slaves. How "many?" > > Many union soldiers also owned slaves. > > How "many?" Are you asking me to do your research? >>>Many union soldiers also owned slaves. >> >>How "many?" > > Are you asking me to do your research? Very few people could afford to own slaves. Slaves were primarily for doing aggricultural work on suitable type farms and plantations. Slaves were expensive to buy and expensive to keep. They had to be fed, watered, and above all, guarded, lest they escape. If one is running a stable, a blacksmith shope, a store, one would not own a slave to do that sort of work. Using family members or wage labor is for cheaper and much more efficient. Bob Kolker > > > Many union soldiers also owned slaves. > > > > How "many?" > > Are you asking me to do your research? He's asking you to be more specific. > > > Many union soldiers also owned slaves. > > > > How "many?" > > Are you asking me to do your research? no we are asking you to do yours. you made the claim so please back it up. > > > Many union soldiers also owned slaves. > > > > How "many?" > > Are you asking me to do your research? No, to support your claim. > > General U.S. Grant owned slaves (his wifes slaves) and didnt free them > > until after the Emancipation Proclaimation. So it certainly wasnt about [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Regards, > Cash Besides Grant, General Sherman also owned slaves. > Besides Grant, General Sherman also owned slaves. -------------- Completely false statement. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Sherman was proslavery, but he didn't own any slaves. Regards, Cash > Besides Grant, General Sherman also owned slaves. he did for a short time as a young man' but he wasn't by the time the war started and anywy the north fought for union not to end slavery. slavery was the souths cause. try to get your brain around that. say this guy or that guy owned slaves{when you are usually wrong} doesn't change the fact the south started the war over slavery. > > General U.S. Grant owned slaves (his wifes slaves) and didnt free them > > until after the Emancipation Proclaimation. So it certainly wasnt about [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Regards, > Cash Lincolns family also owned slaves. > > > General U.S. Grant owned slaves (his wifes slaves) and didnt free them > > > until after the Emancipation Proclaimation. So it certainly wasnt about [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Lincolns family also owned slaves. ------------- Wrong again. Lincoln's family didn't own any slaves. They were way too poor, and they lived in a free state. You are perhaps confusing Mary Todd Lincoln's family with Abraham Lincoln's family. The two are very different. The Todds were a slaveowning family, but Mary Todd Lincoln did not bring any slaves with her when she married Abe. In fact, Mary was herself antislavery. Regards, Cash > > > General U.S. Grant owned slaves (his wifes slaves) and didnt free them > > > until after the Emancipation Proclaimation. So it certainly wasnt about [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Lincolns family also owned slaves. Correction - his wife's family owned slaves. And as such, Lincoln had no legal way of dealing with them any more than you can emancipate your cousin's car or house. Your point, Natty? > > > General U.S. Grant owned slaves (his wifes slaves) and didnt free them > > > until after the Emancipation Proclaimation. So it certainly wasnt about [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Lincolns family also owned slaves. no. lincoln's wife's family did but they were southerners.and foufgt for csa. lioncoln never owned slaves. >> >I don't have any problem with your analysis, but one thing I am >> >wondering, did at some point the war in the north come to be about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> became accomplices in a violent rebellion >> against the United States. ... >> After 4/15/1861, the abolition of the >> Confederacy required the overthrow of the >> secessionist regimes in the "Confederate >> states"; the officers of these governments >> having acted in support of a rebellion now >> made actual, they were all criminals. ... >General U.S. Grant owned slaves (his wifes slaves) and didnt free them >until after the Emancipation Proclaimation. So it certainly wasnt about >freeing the slaves. Irrelevant (also false, as other posters have shown). The question was: When did Union war policy come to include the removal of the existing state governments in the "Confederate" states, and therefore the recreation of loyal state governments, i.e. Reconstruction? The motives of Union men for fighting to suppress the Confederacy have no bearing at all on that question. The only possible reason for this comment is a squid-like effort to foul the waters. | He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less | | flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante | | never conceived that such a thing was possible. | | -- William Goldman, _Heat_ | > >> >I don't have any problem with your analysis, but one thing I am > >> >wondering, did at some point the war in the north come to be about [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > | never conceived that such a thing was possible. | > | -- William Goldman, _Heat_ | Further irrefutable proof that Grant did indeed own slaves... http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm > Further irrefutable proof that Grant did indeed own slaves... So what? Slavery was legal at the time. At the time the Rebs started the ear, the issue, for the Union, was not slavery, but secession. For the Southrons, secession was the means. The end was the maintainance of their "peculiar institution". If the Southrons had not seceeded, only the Abolitionists would have been annoyed about slavery. The Northern politicians and interestest made a decision: slavery would stay only in the States where it was legal. It was not to go into the Territories. It was on this point that the Southrons gagged. If the Southrons had been content to have slavery in the states where it was legal and not try to exand slavery into the territories, there would have been no war. Bob Kolker > > >> >I don't have any problem with your analysis, but one thing I am > > >> >wondering, did at some point the war in the north come to be about [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm That's not irrefutable proof of Grant owning any slave other than William Jones, and the site also shows that Grant freed Jones well before the Civil War started--that fact has already been proven--this site very clearly shows only that Grant worked with the slaves of his father-in-law, Colonel Frederick Dent, and that they weren't Julia's, but her dad's. Although he may have expressed a desire to "liberate" them, they weren't Grant's to "liberate." If it helps, there were a number of Union Generals and politicians who--at one time or another--owned slaves--George H. Thomas, as a teenager, and with the help of his family's slaves, packed up his sisters and widowed mother and fled the Nat Turner revolt in Virginia in 1831, for example. The Lincolns never owned slaves--they couldn't have afforded one. The Todds were a slaveholding Kentucky family, but there is no record of Mary Tood Lincoln having any slaves. However, as it has been also pointed out, the war Between the States was not started to end slavery, but to preserve the Union. Ending slavery did not become a factor until the Emancipation Proclamation some two years later. Jane Margaret Laight Greenbelt MD <snip> > > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer > > economically sound to keep slaves, wouldn't slavery been a thing of the past [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that slave prices were at an all-time high on the eve of the war. They > would not have given up slavery voluntarily. <snip> How then would you explain the end of slavery in Brazil in 1880? > <snip> > > > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > How then would you explain the end of slavery in Brazil in 1880? iw was not as peaceful or as successful as you imagine. By the late 1880s it was just a matter of time before the emperor abolished slavery in Brazil altogether. Unfortunately for the Crown, Brazilian landowners and the country's military leadership were not keen on the liberalizing policies of Pedro II. The abolition of slavery subjected landowners to higher capital investment in manpower, and since these conservative groups were the mainstay of the military, the armed forces were predisposed to side with the land owning classes. Dom Pedro was traveling in Europe when Princess Isabel (shown 3rd from left Standing), acting as regent in her father's stead, passed a law abolishing slavery in Brazil on May 13, 1888. This law, commonly known as the Golden Law, not only brought international praise to the Brazilian imperial family, but also condemned the Crown. The landowners quickly organized and built opposition to the monarchy. Revolts broke out in different regions of the country. In many instances Brazil's republican neighbors, countries that had always resisted having an emperor in Latin America helped these revolts. Princess Imperial Isabel's decree eventually led to the proclamation of the Brazilian republic on November 16, 1889. But in the centuries since, forced labor has survived here. > <snip> > > > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > How then would you explain the end of slavery in Brazil in 1880? Perhaps the Brazilian slaveholders read US history and did not care to repeat it... HankC > > Factually incorrect. It was very sound economically to keep slaves. > > Slavery was a very profitable venture and was a growing concern in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How then would you explain the end of slavery in Brazil in 1880? -------------------- Slavery in the United States has nothing to do with Brazil. Slavery in Brazil wasn't like slavery in the United States. For one thing, due to teh lack of women brought over by colonists, there was a great deal more intermarriage between slaves and masters in Brazil than in the US. Such intermarriage was a major fear in the United States. "Then every negro in South Carolina and every other Southern State will be his own master; nay, more than that, will be the equal of every one of you. If you are tamed enough to submit, Abolition preachers will be at hand to consummate the marriage of your daughters to black husbands." [Baptist minister James Furman, quoted in Steven A. Channing, "Secession in South Carolina," in Michael Perman, _The Coming of the American Civil War,_ Third Edition, p. 240] As time progressed, with continued intermarriage, sons of slaves and slave owners became owners themselves, and they intermarried with slaves as well. Soon it became difficult to tell the slaves from the master class. See Thomas Sowell, _The Economics of Politics and Race_ and _Race and Culture: A World View._ Regards, Cash > > > Factually incorrect. It was very sound economically to keep slaves. > > > Slavery was a very profitable venture and was a growing concern in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -------------------- > Slavery in the United States has nothing to do with Brazil. I would not say that, but it is true that the economics were very different. Slavery in Brazil was mostly tied to the growth of sugar, not cotton, and the sugar industry was well developed by the mid to late 19th century and free (not slave grown) sources of sugar existed. The US south had developed a very impressive way to grow good quality cotton much cheaper than anyone else could at that time. They had a (temporary, but fairly long term) hold on that market, that was still ramping up in 1860. > Slavery in Brazil wasn't like slavery in the United States. For one > thing, due to teh lack of women brought over by colonists, there was a > great deal more intermarriage between slaves and masters in Brazil than > in the US. That does not follow as a logical consiquence unless the masters are female, and that was for the most part not the case in Brazil. What is a logical consiquence of that is that when legal importation of slaves stopped in the early 19th century, the cheap labor source drys up and the economics of the sugar planter goes south fast. > Such intermarriage was a major fear in the United States. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > slave owners became owners themselves, and they intermarried with > slaves as well. Happened in Louisiana too, other places as well. It is not related to the ratio of sexes of the slaves imported. It was a social phenomina, and the British as of the 16th through 17th centuries were a very xenophobic people set next to the French Spanish or Portugese, and at the same time, as with most Germanic people, they tended to give females more social power and rights than Latin societies. This led to a much higher social cost to such relationships, as people would be much less accepting of it for racist reasons, and the female members of his family would not accept the wife as part of a general female pressure to force males to marry "acceptable" mates which meant that females of their class always married well. > Soon it became difficult to tell the slaves from the > master class. See Thomas Sowell, _The Economics of Politics and Race_ > and _Race and Culture: A World View._ > > Regards, > Cash > > Slavery in Brazil wasn't like slavery in the United States. For one > > thing, due to teh lack of women brought over by colonists, there was a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That does not follow as a logical consiquence unless the masters are > female, and that was for the most part not the case in Brazil. ------------------------- No. Perhaps I was unclear. There was a lack of women among the colonists. The slaveowners were male but they had very few free women available to them. As a result, they intermarried with female slaves. > > Such intermarriage was a major fear in the United States. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Happened in Louisiana too, other places as well. It is not related to > the ratio of sexes of the slaves imported. ----------------------- On nowhere near the scale that it happened in Brazil. It was the massive amount of intermarriage in Brazil that is key. Regards, Cash > > > Slavery in Brazil wasn't like slavery in the United States. For one > > > thing, due to teh lack of women brought over by colonists, there was a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > colonists. The slaveowners were male but they had very few free women > available to them. As a result, they intermarried with female slaves. OK. > > > Such intermarriage was a major fear in the United States. > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > On nowhere near the scale that it happened in Brazil. Possibly. Do you have statistics of some sort? One thing for sure it that the Portugese were at this more than a century earlier than the British or French, so the slave period was much longer which even with the same rate of intermarrage would give an added three or four generations of mixing. > It was the > massive amount of intermarriage in Brazil that is key. > > Regards, > Cash > > > > As time progressed, with continued intermarriage, sons of slaves and > > > > slave owners became owners themselves, and they intermarried with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the same rate of intermarrage would give an added three or four > generations of mixing. ------------------------------ "The Portuguese colonists in Brazil were predominantly male. This meant that sexual liaisons with black and Indian women were widespread, leading to a complex stratification of racially mixed offspring. By the late eighteenth century, whites constituted less than one fifth of the population of the country, and as late as 1821 whits were only about one fourth the population--outnumbered both by mulattoes and by blacks. ... At the end of the eighteenth century, there were more than 400,000 free Negroes in Brazil, and by the time slavery was abolished, there were about three times as many free Negroes as slaves. This contrasts sharply with the U.S. experience, where 90 percent of the Negro population was freed as a result of the Civil War. In Brazil, at least hlaf of the Negro population had been free for at least a generation, by the time the institution of slavery was abolished." [Thomas Sowell, _The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective,_ pp. 100-102] Regards, Cash > Dear Group, > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then > again many say that it was fought over States Rights. While the argument that lead up to secesson of the south was centered around slavery, the war was started and fought over the difference as to whether states had the right to seceed. Had both sides agreed on the issue of whether secession was proper or not, then the war would not have happend, at least not starting in 1861 the way it did. If the south agreed with the north that secession was improper and treason, then they would have done otherwise (perhaps violently tried to take over the federal government, which is more common in civil wars, I am not asserting them to be saints). The fact that they went throught the legal motions of state ordinences of secession points to the fact that a majority of them felt it to be legal. Had a larger fraction of the northern people, or at least a larger fraction of the educated people agreed that secession was legal and proper (as some did, see some democratic party editorials in the north after the 1860 election), and had this view prevailed over the Lincoln Administation, then the south would have been allowed to leave in peace. That is my basic argument that the war was fought over secession. Union soldiers said as much in calling southern troops "secesh". It is possible that the war might have started later directly over the slavery issue had both sides agreed on the secession issue, but we will never know. > My question is, what > do you think is the correct answer? Or is either of the answers correct? > I am asking this because, slavery existed in this country for over 200 > years prior to the Civil War. Not once did a Confederate flag fly over a > flag ship. Slave ship?? Is that what you mean. > So who is really to blame for those men, women, and children > being in bondage? The one single person most responsible is King James I of England, he and his navy took over the slave trade (by force) from the Spanish and Portugese, and then forced British colonies in the New World to legalize chattle slavery whether they wanted to or not. > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer > economically sound to keep slaves, I don't think anyone can show that as slavery was still economical as of the start of the war. ---snip > > Dear Group, > > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > around slavery, the war was started and fought over the difference as > to whether states had the right to seceed. So South Carolina and the newly formed Confederacy fired on Ft. Sumter to see if they had the right to secede? Why would anyone start a war over that? > Had both sides agreed on the issue of whether secession was proper or > not, then the war would not have happend, at least not starting in 1861 > the way it did. Hmm. So as the parties alleging the right to secede, I'd think that the southern states would have stepped forward and have done the honorable thing - petition the courts over the right. After all, they didn't *have* to secede, but at least find out the legality of it ... > If the south agreed with the north that secession was improper and > treason, then they would have done otherwise (perhaps violently tried > to take over the federal government, which is more common in civil > wars, I am not asserting them to be saints). The fact that they went > throught the legal motions of state ordinences of secession points to > the fact that a majority of them felt it to be legal. How did these ordinances get verfication in the federal courts? The Supreme Court? What is there in the Constitution that discusses the legality of a state ordinance? > Had a larger fraction of the northern people, or at least a larger > fraction of the educated people agreed that secession was legal and > proper (as some did, see some democratic party editorials in the north > after the 1860 election), and had this view prevailed over the Lincoln > Administation, then the south would have been allowed to leave in > peace. I think you're misreading antebellum history. A large fraction of the Northern population was willing to let the Southern states go - not because they felt they had the legal right, necessarily (I doubt most wasted brain cells over it) - but because they weren't worth the effort. Thank goodness the majority felt otherwise. > That is my basic argument that the war was fought over secession. > Union soldiers said as much in calling southern troops "secesh". > > It is possible that the war might have started later directly over the > slavery issue had both sides agreed on the secession issue, but we will > never know. Can you have failed to read the actual ordinances of secession? State after state explicitly stated they were seceding over the right to own slaves - that their "right," they felt, was being challenged. Given the wealth and power structure slavery afforded the fire-eaters in the South, it's understandable they were willing to engage in revolution to maintain their right to own other human beings. snip > > However, since the Confederacy started to realize that it was no longer > > economically sound to keep slaves, > > I don't think anyone can show that as slavery was still economical as > of the start of the war. <boggle> Then why didn't the South free the slaves upon secession? Why keep an uneconomical process in place? You surely can't believe this? So, in effect, you're arguing that the South seceded to maintain their right to an uneconomical way of maintaining an economy? I think most of us give them more credit than that. </boggle> Dave > ---snip > > > Dear Group, > > > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So South Carolina and the newly formed Confederacy fired on Ft. Sumter > to see if they had the right to secede? No. They knew they had a right to seceed and had already seceeded, and these stupid yankees had not gotten the point yet and were refusing to leave peacefully. > Why would anyone start a war over that? They did not. > > Had both sides agreed on the issue of whether secession was proper or > > not, then the war would not have happend, at least not starting in 1861 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the southern states would have stepped forward and have done the > honorable thing - petition the courts over the right. No the tenth amendment clearly states that the states and/or people have the right to do whatever is not forbidden. They held it was not forbidden and so it would have been up to the Federal government to take it to the court if it held them to be in error. That is what you do when you think a state legislature has passed a a law that violates the US or state constitution, you challenge it in court, you don't start shooting, or refuse to obey law enforcement officiers charged with enforcing state laws. >After all, they > didn't *have* to secede, but at least find out the legality of it ... Show me where a state legislature asked a Federal court if the law was constitutional before passing it. > > If the south agreed with the north that secession was improper and > > treason, then they would have done otherwise (perhaps violently tried [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How did these ordinances get verfication in the federal courts? When has a state legislature EVER asked a Federal court for pre-verification of a law? EVER? It would be up to the Federal Government to challenge the legality of acts of secession in court, not the state to ask, "Mother may I." Generally a legislative body is presumed to have acted correctly if no one challenges the legality of the act. Which Lincoln did not do as I think he was afraid of the answer he might get from SCOTUS. > The > Supreme Court? What is there in the Constitution that discusses the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > I think you're misreading antebellum history. I think you are. It could have gone either way, but for Lincoln and the Republican parties bull headed insistance that secession was treason, and/or that the southerners were bluffing (before Sumter), then traitors (after Sumter). > A large fraction of the Northern population was willing to let the > Southern states go - not because they felt they had the legal right, > necessarily (I doubt most wasted brain cells over it) - but because > they weren't worth the effort. Thank goodness the majority felt > otherwise. I balance 620,000 lives against having a political union maintained by force and it is a no brainer that a political union maintained by force against people who do not want to be in it is worthless set next to the lives of 620,000 young men. Non-violent economic means would have ended slavery if used, like boycotts of slave made products. This worked with apartide and worked in the period before the the Revolution in forcing the merchants of the UK to side with the Revolutionaries. > > That is my basic argument that the war was fought over secession. > > Union soldiers said as much in calling southern troops "secesh". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > after state explicitly stated they were seceding over the right to own > slaves - that their "right," they felt, was being challenged. So what? I agree that the argument that led up to the fight was over slavery. The actual fight was over right of secession. > Given the wealth and power structure slavery afforded the fire-eaters > in the South, it's understandable they were willing to engage in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Then why didn't the South free the slaves upon secession? Why keep an > uneconomical process in place? Slavery WAS economical as of 1860. > You surely can't believe this? You surely cannot belive that people would keep slaves working in an industry that was more that 50% of all US exports (measured in US$) every peacetime year from the early 19th century up until the 1920s if it was not profitable. Sorry dude this was not a bunch of bozos who did not know what they were doing. Their exports were more that 50% (by a wide margin when you add in tobbacco, sugar, and other slave labor crops) of all US exports. Slavery was not about BDSM games or sex or power or some other BS it was about making money, lots of it. > So, in effect, you're arguing that the South seceded to maintain their > right to an uneconomical way of maintaining an economy? Read Fogle & Engerman or any other serious economic analysis of southern slavery. ----snip > > > > Dear Group, > > > > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > forbidden and so it would have been up to the Federal government to > take it to the court if it held them to be in error. article VI makes overturning federal law illegal. that makes secession forbidden. and at no time did the secessionists use the Xth amendment in their declarations. only you, and you are clearly not an authority claim it does. > That is what you do when you think a state legislature has passed a a > law that violates the US or state constitution, you challenge it in > court, you don't start shooting, or refuse to obey law enforcement > officiers charged with enforcing state laws. when a state passes a law that is in violation of the constitution the state usually doesn't start shooting, but when they do the federal government is within its rights to shoot back. that is what happened in 1861. you'd do a lot better if you kept to the facts and didn't twist things 180 degrees from what happened > >After all, they > > didn't *have* to secede, but at least find out the legality of it ... > > Show me where a state legislature asked a Federal court if the law was > constitutional before passing it. show me where a state passed a law and then attacked the country other than 1861? and the process is a citizen challenges the law in court,. then it is over turned or upheld. usually the state doesn't threaten to kill everybody who dares to do such a thing. > > > If the south agreed with the north that secession was improper and > > > treason, then they would have done otherwise (perhaps violently tried [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > When has a state legislature EVER asked a Federal court for > pre-verification of a law? EVER? when has a state ever opened fire on the country before 1861. when informed they are in violation the states try to make a law that isn't. they don't begin a bombardment. > It would be up to the Federal Government to challenge the legality of > acts of secession in court, not the state to ask, "Mother may I." > Generally a legislative body is presumed to have acted correctly if no > one challenges the legality of the act. and it is up to the state to hold off until the matter is settled. > Which Lincoln did not do as I think he was afraid of the answer he > might get from SCOTUS. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > against people who do not want to be in it is worthless set next to the > lives of 620,000 young men. and 620,000 lives to hold people in slavery and to limit free speech and freedom is crimminal, yet you seem quite behind that idea > Non-violent economic means would have ended slavery if used, like > boycotts of slave made products. This worked with apartide and worked > in the period before the the Revolution in forcing the merchants of the > UK to side with the Revolutionaries. is was the mere idea that non-violent methods might be used{even though none were being contemplated} that caused the slavers to resort to violence., the maintenance of slavery was the south cause, the maintenance of the union was the norths. emancipation became an issue only because the union realized that as long as the south maintained slavery they would cause troble. if the south hd been content to keep slavery to themselves and not try to force it on the rest of the contry they would have kept their slaves for much longer. > > > That is my basic argument that the war was fought over secession. > > > Union soldiers said as much in calling southern troops "secesh". [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So what? I agree that the argument that led up to the fight was over > slavery. The actual fight was over right of secession. it wasn't over secession. it was set up by secession. its like claiming WWII was over pearl harbor. > > > > > Dear Group, > > > > > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > article VI makes overturning federal law illegal. that makes secession > forbidden. Which federal law? Cite it. > and at no time did the secessionists use the Xth amendment in their > declarations. Didn't need to. Anyone who has read the constitution should know that. > only you, and you are clearly not an authority claim it does. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when a state passes a law that is in violation of the constitution the state > usually doesn't start shooting, If you insist on violating the law in frount of law enforncement officers and refuse to surrender, yes they do. ---------snip > > > > > > Dear Group, > > > > > > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Which federal law? Cite it. this one. and in fact secession violated every federal law. Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding > > and at no time did the secessionists use the Xth amendment in their > > declarations. > > Didn't need to. Anyone who has read the constitution should know that. you are the only person who believes that. if the south thought it bolstered their case they would have used it. the fact that they didn't shows they didn't believe as you do. if a.h. stepehens was around today he would say you have their reasons all wrong. > > > > > > > Dear Group, > > > > > > > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the > Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding That is not a federal law, it is the supremacy clause of the constitution, and it does not unambigiously or clearly forbid secession of a state using the ratification process in reverse. You are presuming that the "land" in "law of the land" is immutable. That is not a reasonable assumption. If a state joining the union must be a matter of mutual consent to join, then withdrawl of consent of either party would be enought to end the jurisdiction of the US constitution. Or looking at a rather odd example, suppose that one state made itself so odious to the other states that a majority of states and of representatives in congress decided to kick that state out of the union. On what basis would you claim they could not? Or would you? --snip > > this one. and in fact secession violated every federal law. > > Article. VI. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > constitution, and it does not unambigiously or clearly forbid secession > of a state using the ratification process in reverse. the constitution is the ultimate federal law. and it clearly forbid secession. by its wording. "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" that is clar and unambiguous, anything Al, that includes secession. > You are presuming that the "land" in "law of the land" is immutable. > That is not a reasonable assumption. If a state joining the union must > be a matter of mutual consent to join, then withdrawl of consent of > either party would be enought to end the jurisdiction of the US > constitution. the territory applies for statehood, that is far different fro a state asking to join. it is not a state until congress grants it statehood, if its rejected it s not a state and it is not independent. it is only a state when congress so declares. > Or looking at a rather odd example, suppose that one state made itself > so odious to the other states that a majority of states and of > representatives in congress decided to kick that state out of the > union. On what basis would you claim they could not? Or would you? i would claim they were not, and how could a state become odious? if it passed laws that passed constitutional scrutiny then the other states would have no cause for complaint. if the laws were deemed unconstitutional the FEDERAL government would over rule them as was the case in 'brown vs the board of education' states can not be kicked out of the union. at worst they could be decertified as states and i would hold that to be unconstitutional. once again you have posted a completely ridiculous scenario to try to prove a false point. > > > > Dear Group, > > > > Many people say that the Civil War was fought over slavery, and then [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > these stupid yankees had not gotten the point yet and were refusing to > leave peacefully. Isn't it interesting that the majority of Americans disagreed with that view? > > Why would anyone start a war over that? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No the tenth amendment clearly states that the states and/or people > have the right to do whatever is not forbidden. <beating head against wall> Al, we've been over this umpteen billion times - the Supremacy Clause prevents secession from being permitted, because an ordinance of secessionis a thing in the laws of a state that claims that the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. They held it was not > forbidden and so it would have been up to the Federal government to > take it to the court if it held them to be in error. It is up to the Federal government to enforce the law as it interprets it. Since in this case the seceding states would be the "aggrieved party" by that enforcement, it would be on them to initiate such suit. > That is what you do when you think a state legislature has passed a a > law that violates the US or state constitution, you challenge it in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > When has a state legislature EVER asked a Federal court for > pre-verification of a law? EVER? That's because until a law is on the books, it courts have no jurisdiction. > It would be up to the Federal Government to challenge the legality of > acts of secession in court, not the state to ask, "Mother may I." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Which Lincoln did not do as I think he was afraid of the answer he > might get from SCOTUS. Given the courts support in the Prize Cases, in which both the majority and dissenting opinion characterized what was happening as a rebellion, I think you are in error. Taney was a Democrat, but as a Jacksonian he had no use for secession. > > The > > Supreme Court? What is there in the Constitution that discusses the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > treason, and/or that the southerners were bluffing (before Sumter), > then traitors (after Sumter). Except that the Supreme Court characterized what was happening as rebellion, and that Democrat President Buchanan disavowed the Constitutionality of secession and sent the Star of the West to Sumter. And other Democrats such as Logan, McClellan and Butler (and a cast of many, many others, from the highest ranks of the government and military down to the lowliest private soldier or farmer) agreed with the position that secession and the attack on Sumter was treason. > > A large fraction of the Northern population was willing to let the > > Southern states go - not because they felt they had the legal right, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > against people who do not want to be in it is worthless set next to the > lives of 620,000 young men. How about against the lives of millions of men, women and children who would have lived out their lives in their entirety in bondage had the war not happened? As for measuring lives against maintaining a Union by force, I say piffle. If the southerners truly believed that they would not have tried to hold West Virginia by force and would not have gone on hanging sprees in places like east Tennessee and parts of Texas. > Non-violent economic means would have ended slavery if used, like > boycotts of slave made products. This worked with apartide and worked [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > ----snip snips Al wrote: > > > I don't think anyone can show that as slavery was still economical as > > > of the start of the war. I boggled: > > <boggle> And said: |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message