U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-07-2019, 02:02 PM
Status: "Nevertheless, America's baseball team -- Roar, Tigers, ROAR!" (set 25 days ago)
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,307 posts, read 7,454,188 times
Reputation: 15890

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Arguing that the war was about anything but slavery is the revisionist, if not white nationalist viewpoint.
Yep ….. and it's worthy of note that the early episodes of Ken Burns' ground-breaking PBS documentary The Civil War (now nearly 30 years old) stress this point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-07-2019, 02:02 PM
 
15,397 posts, read 13,409,934 times
Reputation: 20880
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
Imagine the kind of economic upheaval that had to happen in order to end slavery. If today a president was elected to force the United states into vegetarianism, you could imagine the cost to producers and all the ancillary industries that would declare war. It would be the end of a lifestyle that lasted many generations for ranchers.That would be tantamount to ending slavery and I couldn't see it happening without some blood shed or at least a Preston Brooks and Charles Sumner incident.
The challenge would be does the US gov have the authority over the states to enact such legislation to make everyone vegetarian. If a group of states say "no", then failed negotiations will lead to war. The war would not be about vegetarianism, it would be about what rights the states have, and how far will either party go. But to put into the time of 1861, mandating vegetarianism on new territories, states, that will allow the US gov to outvote the anti-vegetarian states to get the federal law passed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2019, 02:06 PM
 
15,397 posts, read 13,409,934 times
Reputation: 20880
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Yep .. and it's worthy of note that the early episodes of Ken Burns' ground-breaking PBS documentary The Civil War (now nearly 30 years ago) stress this point.
Stresses what point, that a bunch of white people all of a sudden cared about blacks so much, they went and got killed for them, but then turned around and practiced discriminatory policies for decades against them? To outlaw slavery when it was not even outlawed until after the war, and slavery was in fact legal in the North? That does not make any sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2019, 02:10 PM
 
9,350 posts, read 10,136,289 times
Reputation: 7135
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
The challenge would be does the US gov have the authority over the states to enact such legislation to make everyone vegetarian. If a group of states say "no", then failed negotiations will lead to war. The war would not be about vegetarianism, it would be about what rights the states have, and how far will either party go. But to put into the time of 1861, mandating vegetarianism on new territories, states, that will allow the US gov to outvote the anti-vegetarian states to get the federal law passed.
There would also be to groups supporting this mandate. One would be those who are advocates of animals and the other would be those who are advocates of better health who don't care about what happens to the animals.The government's issue is not the animals or the health of its citizens but the size and political power of the industry creates economic and political imbalance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2019, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,370 posts, read 18,468,173 times
Reputation: 18552
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
It is no nonsense, pointing this out does not make someone support or not support the CSA, no more than pointing out Pearl Harbor happened does not mean a person supports or does not support Japan.

The power of the federal government, at that tie significantly less weak than now, to levy actions on a state, who back then were stronger than now, many still holding loyalty to the state, allowed and should be tolerated or not? Additionally, the fact there was no law stating a state could not leave the USA. Additionally, representatives of the South voted to leave, that is about as peaceful of a way as possible.

Those who think it was over slavery are deluded to think the US gov and a bunch of white people cared about blacks so much, they dumped tons of resources and lost their lives to assist them, lol.
Have you considered the absurdity behind claiming that the war was about states rights? In short that is claiming that the southern states left the union in order to prove that they had the right to leave. They did not leave to champion states rights, they left to champion one specific right, that of slave ownership.

States rights isn't a political philosophy anyway, it is and always has been a political tool, to be used by anyone, North or South, conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, whenever what they want is favored by a state but not by the Federal government. If the slave states were so hot to trot for states rights, why did they become outraged when numerous northern states passed laws which took all the teeth out of the National Fugitive Slave law? Why didn't they say "Ohio has a perfect right to treat the slavery question as Ohioans see fit, we certainly aren't going to usurp that state's right to regulate slavery within their borders?" When the national Fugitive Slave law favored them, the southern states were all for the national law and against a state's right to alter its enforcement within their borders.

And it is still this way. On issues such as abortion, marijuana legalization, assisted suicide, it is the liberals who want it handled on a state by state basis. Who was it who wanted a national "Preservation of Marriage" law? That was the conservatives.

When the 2000 election wound up as a court battle, it was the Democrats who favored having the Florida State Supreme Court's ruling stand. It was the Republicans who insisted it had to be decided by a national institution, the US Supreme Court.

States rights is, and always has been, a phony issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2019, 02:41 PM
 
15,397 posts, read 13,409,934 times
Reputation: 20880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Have you considered the absurdity behind claiming that the war was about states rights? In short that is claiming that the southern states left the union in order to prove that they had the right to leave. They did not leave to champion states rights, they left to champion one specific right, that of slave ownership.
No, they did not leave to prove they had rights, they left because they felt the federal gov was over stepping its authority. Slavery, i.e. economics, was the issue in context does the US gov have the right to tell states they are allowed to have slaves or not. The big issue was expansion of the US, in that the US gov would not allow the new territories, thus states, to have slavery, and that would give the anti-slave states more power to push through anti-slavery legislation.

Slavery was not even illegal when the war broke out, so find it difficult to see how anyone would think a war would be fought over something that was legal at the time, and was not even outlawed until after the war, and was even practiced in the North.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
States rights isn't a political philosophy anyway, it is and always has been a political tool, to be used by anyone, North or South, conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, whenever what they want is favored by a state but not by the Federal government. If the slave states were so hot to trot for states rights, why did they become outraged when numerous northern states passed laws which took all the teeth out of the National Fugitive Slave law? Why didn't they say "Ohio has a perfect right to treat the slavery question as Ohioans see fit, we certainly aren't going to usurp that state's right to regulate slavery within their borders?" When the national Fugitive Slave law favored them, the southern states were all for the national law and against a state's right to alter its enforcement within their borders.
States right is very much a political philosophy, you are viewing in context of 2019, not 1861. State rights was a very debated issue at the founding of the US, and it did not magically go away. Many people still referred to them selves by their state, and had loyalty to the state more so than the federal gov. The entire US political system was set up based upon the rights of states, that is why we had the states send two senators, why reps proportioned to population, and why we have the electoral vote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
And it is still this way. On issues such as abortion, marijuana legalization, assisted suicide, it is the liberals who want it handled on a state by state basis. Who was it who wanted a national "Preservation of Marriage" law? That was the conservatives.
Liberals and conservatives do not want things handled on a state by state basis, unless it favors them, lol. Abortion, please, libs are far, very far from wanting states to make this decision, with every lib and their brother hopping to Georgia recently over their proposed law. Same with cons, yelling for states rights, except when that right goes against what they advocate for, like MJ laws.

But again, you are looking at things through the lenses of 2019, not 1861.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
When the 2000 election wound up as a court battle, it was the Democrats who favored having the Florida State Supreme Court's ruling stand. It was the Republicans who insisted it had to be decided by a national institution, the US Supreme Court.
Again, refer to above, and you are viewing things through the modern context, otherwise known as a historian fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
States rights is, and always has been, a phony issue.
No, the entire concept of the US was around states rights, to think you do not even know this is rather baffling, there are volumes upon volumes of debates between the states before forming the US, the name of the US even demonstrates this. These debates did not magically end in 1776...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2019, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,370 posts, read 18,468,173 times
Reputation: 18552
boxus
Quote:
No, they did not leave to prove they had rights, they left because they felt the federal gov was over stepping its authority. Slavery, i.e. economics, was the issue in context does the US gov have the right to tell states they are allowed to have slaves or not.
The problem of taking such a partisan view is that one is required to distort the actual facts in order to make one's points. The US was in no manner overstepping its authority. The Republicans came to power on a platform which promised to curb the expansion of slavery into future states not yet created. There is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits Congress from making laws regarding new states. In fact, while the area was still a territory, it was ruled by a governor appointed by the Federal government, not by locally elected officials.

Quote:
Slavery was not even illegal when the war broke out, so find it difficult to see how anyone would think a war would be fought over something that was legal at the time, and was not even outlawed until after the war, and was even practiced in the North.
Again, you have to try and distort the situation, this time by presenting an incomplete picture. The war did not break out over slavery, the war broke out over the issue of the legality of secession.

This is the History forum and historians are supposed to be neutral, not partisan. You aren't interested in truly understanding what happened, your interest appears to lie in justifying the southern position. As such, there is little point in arguing with you, you will not embrace the facts if the facts fly in the face of your pre-existing position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2019, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,083 posts, read 2,816,523 times
Reputation: 12061
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
Stresses what point, that a bunch of white people all of a sudden cared about blacks so much, they went and got killed for them, but then turned around and practiced discriminatory policies for decades against them? To outlaw slavery when it was not even outlawed until after the war, and slavery was in fact legal in the North? That does not make any sense.
You can keep repeating this largely irrelevant narrative as long as you like: it doesn't displace the reality of history. Starting with the documents of secession, the interim state constitutions and the Confederate founding documents, all (or nearly all) of which not only mention slavery as the issue, but put it in the preamble.

The other issues of control and sovereignty never would have led to secession, much less war.

The noble lost cause/fight for freedom and states' rights narrative didn't form until the Confederacy was down and ready for the sucker punch, and was maintained for the next century. However, the preeminent historian of the postwar era, a literally die-hard Confederate, wrote a multivolume history that never failed to emphasize that slavery was the issue they fought over.

Yes, it was over "states' rights" - the right to maintain slavery. And yes, the primary spur to the Union was preservation of the Union... which meant abolition on a national scale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2019, 08:58 PM
 
15,062 posts, read 19,621,616 times
Reputation: 12219
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
States had seceded a half year before the attack on Ft Sumter-- and that attack was the response to Lincoln's refusal to peacefully abandon the fort when asked by SC....Seems that episode was merely an analogy to the assassination of the Archduke 60 yrs later. ...Why couldn't The North just concede that they did not represent the People of The South, who deserved their own right to self determination?
What you are saying is the same as saying that ....
if Texas wants to secede and join Mexico.... They have the right to take over American military bases in Texas and US has no right to stand up against that aggression
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2019, 08:59 PM
 
15,062 posts, read 19,621,616 times
Reputation: 12219
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
"He's a Civil War buff? I'd love to be a Civil War buff." --George Costanza


I'm not a Civil War buff either, but this Brexit negotiation got me to thinking-- The Southern States didn't negotiate. They just left. Other than ego & lust for power, why did The North feel such a need to go to war over it? If you invite a bad actor to your birthday party and he wants to leave, do you beat him up to make him stay?
I'm always amazed at the lack of knowledge about Civil War

What do you mean with "They didn't negotiate, they just left?"
Have you ever heard of the 3/5th compromise in the 1787 Constitutional Convention?
or the 1793 or 1850 Fugitive Slave Acts?.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top