Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus Christ,
It wasn't about state rights
The South was pro-federal government and angry that the North was not complying with federal mandated pro-slavery laws.
The South was losing slaves, the North was passing state laws to protect runaway slaves
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Second, lets clarify the exclusion law of the northern states ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo
What the hell does that have to do with this debate?
Typical response "The North was racist, too"
Nobody has said that people in the North were not racist or whatever
we are talking about why the South seceded, which ended up starting the civil war
To me, it didn't look like the exclusions laws were 'protecting' people. And politics started the civil war.
PS: which began brewing right after the Constitution was signed (drafted in secret) and depicted through the testimonies of those holding senate seats in that era.
PS: which began brewing right after the Constitution was signed (drafted in secret) and depicted through the testimonies of those holding senate seats in that era.
Agree,
that's why the Fugitive Slave Clause was added to the constitution as a compromise
And that was the issue from 1793 until 1861 ... that caused the Civil War
The Northern states argued that the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 was unconstitutional because it took away the states’ rights to legislate regarding fugitives from slavery; indeed, many of the Northern states passed "personal liberty" laws requiring trial by jury for blacks accused of being fugitive slaves and making the "recapture" of a fugitive slave a kidnapping offense. Southern states, on the other hand, argued that the Fugitive Slave Law was necessary to protect their property rights and that the law was "necessary and proper" to carry out the Constitution’s provisions regarding fugitives from labor. A number of cases and arguments relevant to these issues are presented in the collection.
So full disclaimer to get my background where I'm posting from.... I have a "northern perspective and education"
So I've really become interested in the civil war lately and the more I've been learning the more interested I've become.
I remember in school basically being told more or less the war was about slavery and related issues and that's the way it was. Never gave a 2nd thought about it and just thought that's that.
The more I read and learn I'm really challenging what I thought I knew. And I'm curious to get some more opinions on this topic or get some more books or documentaries recommended to me.
I also just visited Gettysburg this year and that's what really got me down the rabbit hole of the civil war.
Looking at everything I've learned so far it seems the cause of the civil war is so much more complex than I realized. Even reading Lincoln's inaugural address in 1861 he specifically mentions not trying to stop slavery in the South and its not his intention (I'm paraphrasing)
And that most people in the South readily admitted that they feel slavery would have naturally ended on its own.
The union still allowed border states like West virginia, Delaware, Kentucky to stay in the union and support the union cause AND remain slave states. That right there says the war did not originally start as a means to end slavery when the union allows its own states to continue on with slavery.
Like 97% of southern soldiers were far to poor to ever have slaves. Even some of the more aristocratic ones, for example Thomas Jackson actually went out of his way to teach slaves to read and write and helped build a Sunday school for them. I couldn't believe when I learned one of the confederates most famous generals was teaching slaves to read and write and with respect. It was quite a surprise for me to learn.
Lincoln only gave the emancipation proclamation addrssing slaves in confederate territory deliberately to undermine the south's economy, and to sow discontent and unrest.
Definitely didn't learn these things in school.
It's really changed how I look at the war.
I am really thinking that American civil war Was the South being angry and feeling mistreated over states rights issues. It's far more complex than I realized. And I am now viewing the confederacy differently than I did before. The North invaded to beat the South back into submission to preserve the union not to stop slavery, that became a method to inflict pain on the southern economy.
I've read/watched all the usuals...the killer angels, God's and generals, gettysburg, glory, (still have to read the last full measure) and I think It's called blue and grey? And others Etc..
If you guys have any interesting points or feedback let me know. I'm always willing to reevaluate and learn.
If you have any book or movie / mini series recommendations let me know
You have now realized the The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, since Lincoln had no authority in The Confederacy.
Got a book for you:
"When I was a Slave".......... During The Depression, FDR sent journalists out to speak with and write down the experiences of actual slaves who were still alive. Their stories - many hundreds of them - are written and available.
My own opinion ( a Southerner) is that the war was unnecessary. The South could have been allowed to secede with the stipulation that the issue be revisited every 25 years and the door left open forever.
Slavery would have ended anyway.
There have been many periods of upset over regional differences in America but only one of them turned into outright war because (1) Southern slave owners thought, more or less correctly, that Lincoln wanted to take away their slaves and (2) Northern farmers and other workers were furious that Southern whites could, without paying them, force other people to do backbreaking work that they, the Northerners, had to do themselves.
"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 alone I would also do that.".
"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 alone I would also do that.".
Ok, as you say here, if Lincoln did not want to take their slaves, why then did South Carolina and the other deep South states secede?
Ok, as you say here, if Lincoln did not want to take their slaves, why then did South Carolina and the other deep South states secede?
After the John Brown raid in which Brown tried to bring about a slave uprising many in the South became very nervous. The raid inflamed white Southern fears of slave rebellions and increased the mounting tension between Northern and Southern states. (There were some 4 million slaves in the South at the time.)
However, Lincoln had no intention of going to war simply to end slavery. If the South had agreed not to leave the Union there wouldn't have been a war and slavery would have continued.
Last edited by john3232; 09-23-2017 at 09:54 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
