Could the Civil War have been avoided if the slaves freedom had just been bought? (state, Spanish)
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.
i read this book that was written by a black corresponder that goes back to africa for three years "out of america" by keith b richburg, It was a hard read. but what got me was in the last section of the book he claims, his family being sold to slavery was the best thing happen to his family, base on africa today with all the killing, crime, etc.
i read this book that was written by a black corresponder that goes back to africa for three years "out of america" by keith b richburg, It was a hard read. but what got me was in the last section of the book he claims, his family being sold to slavery was the best thing happen to his family, base on africa today with all the killing, crime, etc.
i have no comment accept the book i read
The problem with his claim is that Africans from West Africa are widely accepted as the most successful blacks in America. So those who came on their own accord have done far better than those who were forced to come.
Were there any other states' rights issues at hand? States' rights to do what? Name them please.
It was all about slavery.
No, it was not. It's like the issue with the mayor of New York trying to regulate the size of soft drinks sold in movie theaters. Was that about soft drinks? No, it was about people saying the government had no authority to regulate that sort of thing. I would also point out Lincoln's saying that if he could preserve the nation without freeing any slaves he would do it. Second, the war was near to half over before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. And third, 4 slave states did not join the South and slavery remained legal in those states throughout the war, even after the Emancipation Proclamation. Taken together, these facts pretty much destroy the notion that the Civil War was about slavery. It was about how much authority the federal government had over state governments. Like the soft drinks in New York, slavery itself wasn't the issue - it was the regulation of slavery that was the issue. The North wasn't fighting to free the slaves, the North was fighting to assert the power of the federal government over the Southern states.
You are grossly simplifying the issue to the point that you make no sense and are either shockingly ignorant or deliberatively deceptive.
When the South seceded from the Union, the North said no and went to war to preserve the Union. It did not go to war to end slavery, and on this point you are correct. But the South would have never seceded from the Union had it not been for slaves.
The simple fact is that the origins of the Civil War has to do with slavery. Had there been no slavery in the United States there would have been no Civil War. Period. Everything about the war boils down to one simple factor: slaves. Why was the South economically different from the North? Slaves. Why was the South morally different from the North? Slaves. Why did the South and North grow apart, culturally? Slaves. What was the single states' right issue in this clash between state and federal authority? Slaves (you still haven't named any other states' rights issues...)
Note: I've borrowed the two paragraphs below from elsewhere:
In its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit...was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.
In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
In short, the North, while despising blacks, still despised slavery and did not want to see slavery expand into the new states (if only to keep the new states for the white man). That was Lincoln's platform. The South rejected any platform prohibiting the expansion of slavery into the new states/territories. That was the South's only argument for states' rights. The South seceded in a fit of paranoia because it was afraid that the growing number of free states in the western territories threatened the delicate political balance between the slave and free states and would decisively tip the balance in favor of the North.
When the Confederacy was established, the new constitution was nearly identical to the original US constitution except for one thing: it explicitly legalized and protected slavery.
I've researched into the time period and it's one of my favorite periods of history and yep, the substantial written evidence is that just about everyone accepted the war was ultimately due to slavery, whether directly or indirectly.
I will admit that it's still fascinating to me that the North, which both despised the South and regarded abolitionists as dangerous warmongers, and contrary to Southern sentiments, still felt that the South was trying to impose the institution of slavery across all of America (see the Dred Scott decision and its implications) still went to war to retain the Southern states as part of the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
No, it was not. It's like the issue with the mayor of New York trying to regulate the size of soft drinks sold in movie theaters. Was that about soft drinks? No, it was about people saying the government had no authority to regulate that sort of thing. I would also point out Lincoln's saying that if he could preserve the nation without freeing any slaves he would do it. Second, the war was near to half over before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. And third, 4 slave states did not join the South and slavery remained legal in those states throughout the war, even after the Emancipation Proclamation. Taken together, these facts pretty much destroy the notion that the Civil War was about slavery. It was about how much authority the federal government had over state governments. Like the soft drinks in New York, slavery itself wasn't the issue - it was the regulation of slavery that was the issue. The North wasn't fighting to free the slaves, the North was fighting to assert the power of the federal government over the Southern states.
Do we know for certain that the slaves were even for sale? Why would the planters sell slaves when the prices of slaves was going through the roof? Their life style was tied to the value of slaves and as long as they held on to their slaves they were getting richer and richer in the southern economy. it would have been a currency swap and I don't think the dollar was doing that well as compared to the same values in slaves. States rights was not a " thing" it was at best an idea that the planter class gambled their slaves on and lost. Had they known that ; gold, railroad, ranching, and oil was on the horizon they could have sold out before the price drop and made another billion in their lifetime.
The problem with selling slaves for a buy out was that slaves were much more than labor. they were collateral for the loans which bought the seed for the next crop. They were the dollar value of the wealth of the owner. They were social wealth. If the plantation owners only real wealth was his slaves, then selling them for what might be a discount in terms of what he could use them for financially meant he was giving up his greatest asset.
If it was presented as an if or sort of question. Sell now, get money or war will come and you'll lose them, I doubt many really believed that war was going to be lost or perhaps even come.
The simple fact is that the origins of the Civil War has to do with slavery. Had there been no slavery in the United States there would have been no Civil War. Period. Everything about the war boils down to one simple factor: slaves. Why was the South economically different from the North? Slaves. Why was the South morally different from the North? Slaves. Why did the South and North grow apart, culturally? Slaves. What was the single states' right issue in this clash between state and federal authority? Slaves (you still haven't named any other states' rights issues...)
Tally,
I liked everything you wrote.. very well said but I take issue with one part (highlighted above). It's really a pet peeve of mine. I BELIEVE the North and South were on equal moral grounds. I think the Fugitive Slave law confirms this. I simply do NOT BELIEVE the NORTH had a moral epiphany and declared, WE MUST END SLAVERY NOW! That simply never happened. There were obviously some abolitionists who did but they were few and far between and there were simply not enough of them to place the NORTH on higher moral ground. IMO!
Slavery is a BLACKEYE on the US as a whole and not just a black eye on the SOUTH! That's really my only issue with your post which was well thought out, IMO!
The North is hardly....err....innocent and the American treatment towards African Americans, anywhere in the country, is truly a stain on America's reputation. Not all Northern states granted true civil rights to African Americans and the general populace's attitude towards black Americans was decidedly hostile and distant. Most white Americans (by which I mean, oh, say, 99% of the white population) in the North wanted nothing to do black Americans and would be very happy to have repatriated them to Africa.
But I will disagree with your claim that the North and South were on equal moral grounds. For all its flaws the North was still decidedly anti-slavery - the institution - even if they didn't care for African Americans themselves and were willing to tolerate the existence of slavery in the Southern states. Out of sight, out of mind. Most Northerners were not active abolitionists because of the implications (they feared the possible outcomes, including violence, destruction of property and so forth, they didn't want to rock the boat and threaten the fragile peace in the US) and many Northerners saw abolitionists as dangerous warmongers who refused to let sleeping dogs lie.
But when it came to the expansion of slavery into the territories, the North was firmly adamant: no more slave states. The North certainly saw African Americans as inferior to white men, but they drew the line at slavery. That's why the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive slave law act were so unpopular in the North. Uncle Tom's Cabin was a huge bestseller in the North, one of the first American bestsellers.
So, while the North wasn't perfect, it could at least hold a justifiable claim to being morally superior over the issue of slavery, if not race relations. The South's absolute refusal, especially the deep Southern states, to compromise over slavery is what damages the South so badly in this dueling claim of moral superiority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65
Tally,
I liked everything you wrote.. very well said but I take issue with one part (highlighted above). It's really a pet peeve of mine. I BELIEVE the North and South were on equal moral grounds. I think the Fugitive Slave law confirms this. I simply do NOT BELIEVE the NORTH had a moral epiphany and declared, WE MUST END SLAVERY NOW! That simply never happened. There were obviously some abolitionists who did but they were few and far between and there were simply not enough of them to place the NORTH on higher moral ground. IMO!
Slavery is a BLACKEYE on the US as a whole and not just a black eye on the SOUTH! That's really my only issue with your post which was well thought out, IMO!
No, it was not. It's like the issue with the mayor of New York trying to regulate the size of soft drinks sold in movie theaters. Was that about soft drinks? No, it was about people saying the government had no authority to regulate that sort of thing. I would also point out Lincoln's saying that if he could preserve the nation without freeing any slaves he would do it. Second, the war was near to half over before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. And third, 4 slave states did not join the South and slavery remained legal in those states throughout the war, even after the Emancipation Proclamation. Taken together, these facts pretty much destroy the notion that the Civil War was about slavery. It was about how much authority the federal government had over state governments. Like the soft drinks in New York, slavery itself wasn't the issue - it was the regulation of slavery that was the issue. The North wasn't fighting to free the slaves, the North was fighting to assert the power of the federal government over the Southern states.
Ah no, the southern states feared the federal government would ban slavery. The point of having an strong federal government is so that some laws are consistent across the country. While I might think that regulating the size of soft drinks goes too far on all levels of Government, I do think the government both federal, state and local have the right to regulate and to limit anything provided their is an good reason. There is no constitutional right to be free of regulation.
In the case of slavery it hurt the RIGHTS of HUMAN BEINGS to choose whom they may work for, how much they should be paid, and their own HUMAN RIGHTS of freedom from abuse, and the sanctity of marriage as well as the RIGHTS of the parent to keep and raise their own children. IMHO this is something that NO government should have the RIGHT to allow.
Tally,
I liked everything you wrote.. very well said but I take issue with one part (highlighted above). It's really a pet peeve of mine. I BELIEVE the North and South were on equal moral grounds. I think the Fugitive Slave law confirms this. I simply do NOT BELIEVE the NORTH had a moral epiphany and declared, WE MUST END SLAVERY NOW! That simply never happened. There were obviously some abolitionists who did but they were few and far between and there were simply not enough of them to place the NORTH on higher moral ground. IMO!
Slavery is a BLACKEYE on the US as a whole and not just a black eye on the SOUTH! That's really my only issue with your post which was well thought out, IMO!
That individual said the North and South had different morals, not that one was morally or ethically superior to the other. I would certainly say a northerner and a southerner value different things, if one would acknowledge they are different culturally, why would their morals not differ as well?
Please refrain from confusing them with facts. Or with the words of their own ancestors on the topic.
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.
