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.
Was the war between brothers really begun like brothers falling out?
How do brothers fall out?
Quote:
Was in a struggle between the Rich?
The end of the expansion of slavery would mean the eventual reduction of the political power of the slave states, which would mean the reduction of their voice in national affairs which would mean a reduction of their ability to influence the national economy in their favor. The emergence of a controlling majority of free states would mean the increase in their ability to influence the national economy in their favor.
In that indirect sense, it was an economic war and in any economic war, the interests of the wealthiest people is at stake. In this very limited, indirect manner, it could be viewed as a war between upper class wealth, North and South.
Quote:
Was the issue --Slavery?
Remove the issue of slavery and it is very difficult to imagine there having been a war. All of the sectional conflict was centered on slavery. The issue of states rights vs Federal power was rooted in the argument as to whether or not slavery was an unnatural state, in conflict with the principles of freedom upon which the nation was founded. If it was seen as that, then slavery could only exist as a positive law...an internal regulation by a state, but there was no such thing as a Federal slave, the laws of slavery did not extend beyond the borders of the states which were enforcing it. If that argument was accepted, then the Federal government was indeed empowered to regulate slavery in new territories, and any national Fugitive Slave Law was unconstitutional. This argument relied on the language of the Constitution which never once uses the word "slave", but rather references "persons held in service." In the North, the abolitionists were interpreting that to mean that the constitution does not support the idea of slaves being "property."
The Southern argument was that slavery enjoyed positive constitutional protection as prerogative of the states where it existed and there was no language in the Constitution which empowered the Federal government to interfere with the institution. They argued that slaves were indeed property and as such, subject to the same protections enjoyed by citizens for any other kind of property.
It was an argument which could only be settled by one side or the other completely giving in, or by war if neither side was willing to yield. There could be no legal solution because the Constitution offered no unambiguous language on the matter.
Slavery was the issue, states rights and Federal power were the tools used to fight this battle, they were not the battle.
Quote:
Was the Issue Money?
See answer to # 2 above.
Anyway, that is how it was and I'm confident that no one will be along to challenge any of my statements, that never happens because unlike 1861, today we are all in perfect harmony in interpreting the causes of the war.
Intellectually speaking....you say? How do brothers fall out? I think you are not from Southern roots...Am I correct?
Anyway ...not very old?
Anyway I just wonder about what could have been done differently
and saved the lives of many regular God fearing poor people of all colors,
who were forced in some cases
and tricked in others by Southern Politicians...
Mark Twain served in a southern ARMY... but after two weeks he quit and left for California.
Intellectually speaking....you say? How do brothers fall out? I think you are not from Southern roots...Am I correct?
Anyway ...not very old?
Anyway I just wonder about what could have been done differently
and saved the lives of many regular God fearing poor people of all colors,
who were forced in some cases
and tricked in others by Southern Politicians...
Mark Twain served in a southern ARMY... but after two weeks he quit and left for California.
The only way to avoid war was thus...
1. The North relents on the issue of slavery and lets the western territories make their own decisions on whether they are free or slave. This results in a permanent enshrinement of Southern political power in the Federal government.
2. The South relents on the issue of slavery and either agrees to contain it within the current borders or end the practice all together. This results in the North gaining the upperhand politically within the Federal government.
There was ultimately no "win-win" scenario. One side had to relent on their convictions and subsequently their influence nationally in order to avoid conflict. The only realistic way would have been if the issue of slavery had been addressed during the countries founding. Of course, in that case, there probably wouldn't have been a United States to begin with.
As for the "brother's analogy" I get where you are coming from, but the answer is still the same. Just as with brothers, some differences of opinion or belief rise to such high levels that they override the bond of brotherhood and common interest and lead to conflict.
1. The North relents on the issue of slavery and lets the western territories make their own decisions on whether they are free or slave. This results in a permanent enshrinement of Southern political power in the Federal government.
2. The South relents on the issue of slavery and either agrees to contain it within the current borders or end the practice all together. This results in the North gaining the upperhand politically within the Federal government.
There was ultimately no "win-win" scenario. One side had to relent on their convictions and subsequently their influence nationally in order to avoid conflict. The only realistic way would have been if the issue of slavery had been addressed during the countries founding. Of course, in that case, there probably wouldn't have been a United States to begin with.
As for the "brother's analogy" I get where you are coming from, but the answer is still the same. Just as with brothers, some differences of opinion or belief rise to such high levels that they override the bond of brotherhood and common interest and lead to conflict.
Great post..thanks............people do have good and bad brother experiences....Imagine being in the Civil War and praying not to meet your own brother in battle.
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.
Thanks for the ....Post.
