U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-22-2015, 09:52 PM
 
12,566 posts, read 10,440,905 times
Reputation: 17362

Advertisements

Whoever left me this rep rather than put it in the thread...

"You need to do more research centering around why the south REALLY wanted to succeed, and it had NOTHING to do with slavery."

Mini history lesson (from a history major who took so many American Civil War/slavery era/African American history based classes that it could have been my concentration had I wanted it to): Because Lincoln did not approve of the institution of slavery and wanted to contain slavery by not allowing new states in the West to form as slave states, the South disliked him and did not support his election. Southerners feared that if none of the new states entering the Union would be slave states, the existing slave states would thus be outweighed in Congress, so the abolitionist side would be able to outlaw slavery in the country completely. Southern states feared that with the direction the country was going in politically, with the election of Lincoln, they would lose their status as slave states and have to give up their slaves, who essentially made the South so much money. This is why SC seceded not long after Lincoln was elected - it was an extreme protest to his election and his platform. Given the time period, putting myself in their position and mindset, this actually all makes sense. I get why they did it. I don't support it today, and I find it traitorous (I know, contentious), but logically I do get it, and their prediction is what probably would have happened had secession and war not happened. Slavery couldn't last forever...

I suggest someone confronts me about something like this publicly next time. We can discuss it, feel free to share your thoughts on the whole issue, whoever left me that rep comment.

 
Old 12-22-2015, 09:54 PM
 
1,514 posts, read 995,693 times
Reputation: 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
I would say it was very important to tens of thousands of slaves.

There were hundreds of thousands of slaves. That aside, the Confederate motivation for leaving (slavery) would be important if the union went to war to free the slaves, and not simply to win a political dispute.
 
Old 12-22-2015, 10:39 PM
 
1,021 posts, read 1,916,063 times
Reputation: 1454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
That is not what the tenth amendment says.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Southern states had the right to legal slavery, any economic system of their choosing, and the right to raise a militia. However, Southerners wanted to deny "states rights" of Northern states that DID NOT want to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law and Southerners wanted to expand slavery into territories that DID NOT want the institution. When "the people" of the Kansas Territory decided they wanted to be admitted as a free state (against the whim and will of Southerners) and was admitted as such, apparently that was too much for the Southern states to bear and the Southern people subsequently committed treason, which is explicitly defined in the Constitution.

I'm not sure what your point is but to say that the Confederacy fought for "States rights" is a farce of history. The Confederate States of America was actually quite anti-states rights. If you don't believe me, then ask the ancestors of "the people" of Northern Alabama, East Tennessee, and half of the voting population of North Carolina that either did not want to secede from the Union or wanted to secede, in turn, from their respective Confederate states once they seceded from the Union. The Confederate States of America certainly did not respect the states rights of those people in the powers delegated to them!
 
Old 12-23-2015, 01:42 AM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
6,463 posts, read 7,424,322 times
Reputation: 10846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
The confederates never attempted to over throw any government, nor did they attempt to invade another nation. Instead, they tried to walk away from a government using the authority given to them in the US constitution. They only became "traitors" when a rival political faction voided their right to leave. In doing so, the north became a domestic enemy of the US constitution.

Sure, the Confederates wanted to leave because of slavery. The reason for leaving, however, is not important. It could have been because they did not like the decor in the White House. The secession of states was- and is still permitted under the US constitution. Secession is not permitted, however, by the federal government.


I could not have said it better. The federalist in the north never believed states had much authority, and that attitude led to the civil war. I agree that states do have the right to secede. If they do not have that right are we in a free country at all?? This was a voluntary union until 1865, and any state should have the right to leave it. No matter what congress has said in the years since the civil war, secession is still an option on the table for states tired of a power hungry growing federal government. After all what can they do to stop it other than military action, and then it will be the result of that military action that will decide the issue correct? That is what happened in the 1860s and unfortunately we lost. However that does not mean that would be the result again if it were to happen a second time. The state vs federal power question is still at the core of this nations political divisions today. Some of the issues of the civil war were only put on a long term hold by the northern victory. The issue of states rights is rising again, that old northern victory cannot be beat over our heads forever.
 
Old 12-23-2015, 02:06 AM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
6,463 posts, read 7,424,322 times
Reputation: 10846
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
Whoever left me this rep rather than put it in the thread...

"You need to do more research centering around why the south REALLY wanted to succeed, and it had NOTHING to do with slavery."

Mini history lesson (from a history major who took so many American Civil War/slavery era/African American history based classes that it could have been my concentration had I wanted it to): Because Lincoln did not approve of the institution of slavery and wanted to contain slavery by not allowing new states in the West to form as slave states, the South disliked him and did not support his election. Southerners feared that if none of the new states entering the Union would be slave states, the existing slave states would thus be outweighed in Congress, so the abolitionist side would be able to outlaw slavery in the country completely. Southern states feared that with the direction the country was going in politically, with the election of Lincoln, they would lose their status as slave states and have to give up their slaves, who essentially made the South so much money. This is why SC seceded not long after Lincoln was elected - it was an extreme protest to his election and his platform. Given the time period, putting myself in their position and mindset, this actually all makes sense. I get why they did it. I don't support it today, and I find it traitorous (I know, contentious), but logically I do get it, and their prediction is what probably would have happened had secession and war not happened. Slavery couldn't last forever...

I suggest someone confronts me about something like this publicly next time. We can discuss it, feel free to share your thoughts on the whole issue, whoever left me that rep comment.


I do not disagree with anything you said here, slavery clearly was the trigger issue that got the conflict started. It was also clearly the most contentious issue of the 19th century, a festering conflict waiting to become violent. However I do believe there are other causes that are often not considered. First is the different attitudes toward federal authority. The Federalist north never believed the states had much authority. Southerners believed in states rights, and this manifested itself in the events of the nullification crises during the Jackson years. Armed conflict could have happened during this event over the issue of state nullification of a Federal law. (a protectionist tarrif) When it comes to states rights I believe whole heartedly that the South is 100 percent correct, and I also believe the constitution backs up that belief. The tenth amendment is VERY clear and the constitution clearly defines the areas where the federal government has authority and where it does not. Anything outside of that defined authority is the realm of state power. The issue of slavery needed be solved another way than federal intervention. The threat of federal action against slavery led the South to secede (which they had the right to do) and the North responded by violating the constitution and launching a military invasion.


The other cause is simply the fact that both regions were headed down different paths. The South was maintaining its agrarian roots while the North was becoming urban and industrialized. There were competing economic interest here and these competing interests may have helped bring the war about. The South did have an economic advantage in the fact that they possessed free/low cost labor. Obviously Northerners did not like this. The North and South were constantly competing economically and of course for control of the Federal government. Once it became clear the North had enough population to control the Federal government the crises was unavoidable.
 
Old 12-23-2015, 03:33 AM
 
44,474 posts, read 17,762,937 times
Reputation: 18699
Imagine what the great cities of Europe would look like if they had pandered to such childish demands over the past 2000 years.
 
Old 12-23-2015, 04:34 AM
 
10,829 posts, read 4,146,423 times
Reputation: 4699
We should remove the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

He was the worst president we ever had.

Literally trampled over the Constitution.

Responsible for 600,000 U.S. dead.

And a lawyer to boot.
 
Old 12-23-2015, 06:21 AM
 
11,230 posts, read 8,373,983 times
Reputation: 20330
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpm1 View Post
Interesting. IMO it is a shame to take down these monuments, they are ultimately monuments to American dead.

(northerner yankee here)
also agree. Very sad. Those monuments are also historical artwork. Criminal.
 
Old 12-23-2015, 06:27 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,391 posts, read 37,728,735 times
Reputation: 22529
JerseyGirl415, did your many classes (taught where, one might ask, and by whom, as experience has taught that that can be critical) include this letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley?

]Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.[/SIZE]

Hon. Horace Greeley:[/SIZE]

Dear Sir.[/SIZE]

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.[/SIZE]

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.[/SIZE]

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.[/SIZE]

Yours,
A. Lincoln.


Last edited by TexasHorseLady; 12-23-2015 at 07:02 AM..
 
Old 12-23-2015, 07:03 AM
 
26,160 posts, read 15,308,141 times
Reputation: 17235
Thumbs up  

Quote:
Originally Posted by John1960
Hours after the New Orleans City Council and its mayor Mitch Landrieu signed an ordinance last week to remove four Confederate monuments, a coalition of preservation groups as well the Sons of Confederate Veterans sued to block their removal.
Good I hope they DO NOT GIVE UP AND CONTINUE FIGHTING IT!!!!

No reason to take those things down...... THEY ARE A PART OF INNOCENT HISTORY!!
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.


Closed Thread

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:30 AM.

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