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.
The South seceded because they feared the North had the power to abolish slavery, without any compensation to slave-owners, which would lead to a complete economic collapse in the South, in part because of the loans that Northern banks had made to Southern landowners, loans that would not be forgiven, even though it would be Northerners creating the situation where repayment of the loans would be impossible.
It seems like you believe the continued enslavement of an entire race of people was a fair trade off to keep the Southern economy chugging along.
How would you feel if you were one of the slaves that was beaten, watched his wife get raped and had his children stolen from him? I doubt the fiscal affairs and avoidance of loan defaults for your slavemasters would be one of your top priorities. How long would you personally be willing to remain a slave for such a ridiculous reason?
Your argument is one of the most morally bankrupt attempts at revisionist history I have seen. Absolutely disgusting.
Well you keep acting like you can somehow change history....the South seceded because they wanted to keep slavery legal. They were attacked by the North in the Civil War to preserve the Union and prevent the country from dividing into two. The South lost that war, and in turn lost the right to have slaves. Keep trying to twist history to make the South sound like the good guys all you want, but they were fighting to preserve slavery.
Where did the threat to ban slavery in the South came from? Not the North or Lincoln.....they never made any legal attempts to ban slavery in the South, on the contrary, they wanted to reinforce slavery as a constitutional right so the South would not leave.
please answer the question with facts and logic.
You bring your weak history education and believe the fairy tale that the Civil War was fought because the South wanted slaves and the "good" guys in the North were humanitarians.
I will keep it simple for you, before the South left the Union:
When did the North tried to ban slavery in the South by passing a constitutional act?....please, if you can find one, name the act.
When did Lincoln as candidate for President and when he took the oath of office ever said that he wanted to ban slavery in the South by constitutional act or executive decision?
the answer to both questions they never did, so where did the threat of banning slavery in the South came from if it wasn't the North, Lincoln or the South for the South to leave?......can you try to put logic in your argument and not repeat the B.S. education you got from the public schools.
It seems like you believe the continued enslavement of an entire race of people was a fair trade off to keep the Southern economy chugging along.
How would you feel if you were one of the slaves that was beaten, watched his wife get raped and had his children stolen from him? I doubt the fiscal affairs and avoidance of loan defaults for your slavemasters would be one of your top priorities. How long would you personally be willing to remain a slave for such a ridiculous reason?
Your argument is one of the most morally bankrupt attempts at revisionist history I have seen. Absolutely disgusting.
Your attack is without foundation.
I believe that slavery should have been ended. I think that slavery would have ended of its own accord. I also think that if slavery had been peacefully resolved, that we would have had a civil war revolving around a different issue. Because the war was really about power. Our Founding Fathers had tried to balance power, not just between the different branches of government, not just between the states and the federal government, but between the very different regions and cultures of our country. And we reached a tipping point in our history, where that power was no longer balanced, and the result was one region wanting to go their own way.
There was nothing revisionist about the facts I presented. The fact that you could not challenge any of those FACTS, and instead relied upon an emotional appeal shows that it was not revisionist.
I never defended the institution of slavery, and I never would.
It seems like you believe the continued enslavement of an entire race of people was a fair trade off to keep the Southern economy chugging along.
How would you feel if you were one of the slaves that was beaten, watched his wife get raped and had his children stolen from him? I doubt the fiscal affairs and avoidance of loan defaults for your slavemasters would be one of your top priorities. How long would you personally be willing to remain a slave for such a ridiculous reason?
Your argument is one of the most morally bankrupt attempts at revisionist history I have seen. Absolutely disgusting.
please don't talk about morally bankrupt when discussing U.S. history or World history.......Morals DON'T belong in history. You won't find it.
Where did the threat to ban slavery in the South came from? Not the North or Lincoln.....they never made any legal attempts to ban slavery in the South, on the contrary, they wanted to reinforce slavery as a constitutional right so the South would not leave.
please answer the question with facts and logic.
You bring your weak history education and believe the fairy tale that the Civil War was fought because the South wanted slaves and the "good" guys in the North were humanitarians.
I will keep it simple for you, before the South left the Union:
When did the North tried to ban slavery in the South by passing a constitutional act?....please, if you can find one, name the act.
When did Lincoln as candidate for President and when he took the oath of office ever said that he wanted to ban slavery in the South by constitutional act or executive decision?
the answer to both questions they never did, so where did the threat of banning slavery in the South came from if it wasn't the North, Lincoln or the South?
It did come from the North. The abolitionists were centered in the North. And the Republican Party, which had just come into being, was deeply involved with the abolitionist movement. The fact that no real actions had been taken on a government level does not undermine the fact that the election of 1860 underscored the North's dominance in both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. A dominance that would only grow. A dominance that the South was wary of, most immediately because of slavery, but also because of what it means to be a part of a country where your voice carries no influence.
It did come from the North. The abolitionists were centered in the North. And the Republican Party, which had just come into being, was deeply involved with the abolitionist movement. The fact that no real actions had been taken on a government level does not undermine the fact that the election of 1860 underscored the North's dominance in both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. A dominance that would only grow. A dominance that the South was wary of, most immediately because of slavery, but also because of what it means to be a part of a country where your voice carries no influence.
The abolitionists were NEVER a majority in the North. They were very vocal but did not have the political power in the North to ban slavery in the South by federal constitution, never mind the South.
That's why the Corwin Amendment to protect slavery as a constitutional right for the South was passed by the North and had the support of Lincoln and outgoing President Buchanan, 2 Presidents from the North. It passed easily by the house and Senate without 1 vote from the South since they already left the Union.
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Does that sound like a threat to end slavery in the South?.....
the North by passing easily the Corwin Amendment to the constitution that was supported by outgoing President Buchanan and incoming President Lincoln, 2 Presidents from the North and passed easily by the House and SENATE (all Northern Votes) guaranteed the right to slavery for the South by constitutional amendment and sealed.
It was submitted for states legislature for ratification but it died because the South wanted no part of it because they didn't want to return to the Union.
That shows you the South had other reasons to leave and not return other than slavery.
Quote:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State
even with the North passing that act the South didn't want to return to the Union......what does that tells you? DUH!!
The abolitionists were NEVER a majority in the North. They were very vocal but did not have the political power in the North to ban slavery in the South by federal constitution, never mind the South.
That's why the Corwin Amendment to protect slavery as a constitutional right for the South was passed by the North and had the support of Lincoln and outgoing President Buchanan, 2 Presidents from the North. It passed easily by the house and Senate without 1 vote from the South since they already left the Union.
Does that sound like a threat to end slavery in the sound?.....
You don't have to be a majority to pose a threat. But as I've stated, the foundational threat was that the South was in a system of government where they could anticipate losing their voice in that government. The Revolutionary War was fought because the colonists didn't have a voice in the British government that ruled them. That motivation was part of the American psyche four-score years later. Americans didn't want to be ruled by a government where they had no voice. The 1860 election wasn't just an election that the South lost. It was an election in which they had no part. Abraham Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the South. If the executive branch of the government was going to be selected by the North, and the legislative branch of the government was going to be dominated by the North, and these two branches are the ones making the laws and enforcing the laws, in effect, ruling the nation, then the South is looking at the writing on the wall. And it doesn't look good for the South. The immediate issue facing the country was slavery. It was the divisive issue of the day, just as forty years earlier, federalism had been the divisive issue of the day, in the same way that racism is a divisive issue today. Immediate issues are catalysts, that play on pressure points that already exist. The cultures of the North and the South were so distinct from one another in 1860, that they formed pressure points, like an earthquake fault. And the immediate issues pressed on the fault until it finally gave way.
My assertion is that the fault lines already existed, and if it weren't for slavery, then another catalyst would have eventually emerged, and a civil war would have erupted. The country was pre-divided by its cultural issues. Slavery was a strong and effective catalyst. But other catalysts would have arisen if the country had found some way to resolve this issue. The fact that we were already divided is what gave weight to the slavery issue. People had incredibly strong bonds with the regions of the country they lived in, much stronger than we have today.
You don't have to be a majority to pose a threat. But as I've stated, the foundational threat was that the South was in a system of government where they could anticipate losing their voice in that government. The Revolutionary War was fought because the colonists didn't have a voice in the British government that ruled them. That motivation was part of the American psyche four-score years later. Americans didn't want to be ruled by a government where they had no voice. The 1860 election wasn't just an election that the South lost. It was an election in which they had no part. Abraham Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the South. If the executive branch of the government was going to be selected by the North, and the legislative branch of the government was going to be dominated by the North, and these two branches are the ones making the laws and enforcing the laws, in effect, ruling the nation, then the South is looking at the writing on the wall. And it doesn't look good for the South. The immediate issue facing the country was slavery. It was the divisive issue of the day, just as forty years earlier, federalism had been the divisive issue of the day, in the same way that racism is a divisive issue today. Immediate issues are catalysts, that play on pressure points that already exist. The cultures of the North and the South were so distinct from one another in 1860, that they formed pressure points, like an earthquake fault. And the immediate issues pressed on the fault until it finally gave way.
My assertion is that the fault lines already existed, and if it weren't for slavery, then another catalyst would have eventually emerged, and a civil war would have erupted. The country was pre-divided by its cultural issues. Slavery was a strong and effective catalyst. But other catalysts would have arisen if the country had found some way to resolve this issue. The fact that we were already divided is what gave weight to the slavery issue. People had incredibly strong bonds with the regions of the country they lived in, much stronger than we have today.
Well, to ban slavery by the constitution you need a majority in congress...... The abolitionists were NEVER a power house in the North, that's how the Corwin Act was passed easily by just Northern votes and supported by Lincoln and outgoing President Bucahan, 2 Presidents from the North.
Those are the facts!!!
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.
