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.
Oh whatever. It was 150 years ago, for chrissakes.
You know, if there hadn't been slavery, the United States could not have advanced as quickly or become as prosperous. We would not have the white house, the capitol building, wall street, as well as *all* the great plantations and estates of the era were built using slave labor. You could not have had the incredible agricultural achievements of the south without them.
I am not saying that slavery is right, by any means, but I am saying that, at the time it served an important purpose.
How about we just move forward and quit looking back.
20yrsinBranson
Huh? If there were no slaves, then they would have used paid labor, what a ridiculous statement.
Huh? If there were no slaves, then they would have used paid labor, what a ridiculous statement.
Which is one of the things that help end slavery in the North. It became cheaper to use paid labor vs slave labor.
It also one of the most ridiculous arguments that the South used during that era to justify slavery. "Blacks were better off as slaves vs paid workers in the North.." Nothern factories could simply fire them and turn them out in the streets.. Southern Slaves were kept, housed, clothed and fed.. until they died.. "
Slaves, like it or not, were legally bought property under the law of these United States.
It doesn't matter what you think about slavery now, it was legal. And the north threatening to take all of those slaves, with no recompense, was unconstitutional. The Supreme court said so, Lincoln ignored them.
Northern business interests wanted a war. It was good for business, they don't have to die, or they were generals that didn't have to see the front line. And after the war was over the North would either win and they could carpet bag the south as a conquered enemy, or if they lost they could either mend the country with slavery legal, or they could still do business with the new nation.
They had no interests in slaves, it was about money, on both sides of the Mason Dixon.
Many prominent southern politicians had spoken of ending slavery after the war, and paying for all of the slaves freedoms. But that would have taken nothern tax dollars, and the captains of industry had no desire to part with their wealth for a race of people most cared nothing about.
Ron Paul is right. The civil war was fought for unconstitutional reasons. The war could have been avoided, and slavery ended. But why have peace when you can make more money with the war.
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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.[1]
Einstien, Your don't think that the NORTH was the aggressor???
Lee didn't invade the NORTH until 1863 as a last desperate attempt to end the war that he was loosing due to attrition..
No, the north wasn't an aggressor. The south had two issues:
1- They hated federal government's control in regulating/abolishing slavery, a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution.
2- They violated US Constitution by forming a confederacy.
And this is before they chose to take over federal posts by force. The federal authority wasn't there to sit and watch the children at play.
No, the north wasn't an aggressor. The south had two issues:
1- They hated federal government's control in regulating/abolishing slavery, a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution.
2- They violated US Constitution by forming a confederacy.
And this is before they chose to take over federal posts by force. The federal authority wasn't there to sit and watch the children at play.
There was never a trial before the supreme court that said that leaving the union was against the law in anyway. After the 14th amendment, it is now illegal, but prior, it wasn't.
No trial went before the supreme court, and Jefferson Davis wasn't tired for treason, because he didn't commit treason.
Look, slavery was awful. Both the north and the south were wrong for what they did. There was a way without war, but neither followed it. I think many of the southern business interests felt that they could win the war and have their own country. Hence the push for war.
I can agree with Paul that Anti-slavery wasn't really the issue, it was a right of States Rights. I was led to believe as a child that the South was bad because they wanted slavery, and I'm a southerner. It wasn't until I got into AP US History that I learned the truth, even written from a victorious sides's POV. It was about a State's right to choose whether or not to have slavery, as well as the economic disparity between the North and South, seeing as the North was a manufacturing economy and the South was still mainly agricultural.
Oh and yeah, the South may have fired the first shot, but have you actually researched that day? Lincoln basically told the South that he was sending provisions to the Fort and it was definetly NOT ammunition and weapons. Kinda egging them on, ya know? Brilliant move on Lincolns part, but I can see why the South retaliated.
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.
