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 was reading some more
found that the "Fugitive Slave Act of 1950" is an expansion of the Constitution's Article 4 Section 2 which says that runaway slaves should be returned.
This law made it a Federal crime to help runaway slaves in any way even in Free States. Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So it's true what somebody else said before... that Southern states were not in favor of "State rights"
I spot a typo(1850, not 1950), but what you have said shows alot about how far many southerners were willing to defend the institution of slavery. Anytime it because a crime to help a slave get free, then that shows how far some people will go.
I also have this to add. I see those trying to offer apologist views by pointing out that the former President Lincoln did not intend to free the slaves, nor did the Union. No one is saying that the Union was. This isn't about why the Union was fighting. The South wanted secession, and keeping the institution of slavery was a major reason for this. The elites of the South,the planter class, they wanted secession because they feared that Lincoln would end slavery. They were not going to let go. The desire to keep slavery around was a major reason. It is stated in the Articles of Secession. The first states to secede had the largest populations of slaves. I will add a part two to this.
^There are some who would point to the fact that the majority of persons fighting for the Southern side did not own slaves. Okay, pointed noted. Does it refute the fact that the upper echelons of southern society wanted to keep slavery? Does it refute what was said in the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens? War is alot like this, at least the Civil War anyway. It is a rich man's cause, but a poor man's fight. The elites of the South were prepared to secede, but needed to convince the poor to fight. Think about this. The poor Whites of the South(who were more numerous than the wealthy) didn't have a dog fight in this. The slave owners did. How do you convince poor Whites to fight for you? Cloak it in states rights. Tell people that if they don't pick up arms and fight, the federal government will lay waste to their land, or that times would be very hard for the South. Furthermore, some people tried convincing the poor that the Black population would run riot over everyone if the Union won.
A few points to make:
-The U.S. government had no real intention of freeing the slaves, at least at that point anyway. Lincoln himself said that he would not have changed anything if possible. It was all about strategy.
-The South operated not to much different from a banana republic at that time. The south was largely agrarian. With the exception of New Orleans and Baltimore, the economy was based on largely cotton through most of the South (sugar cane in Louisiana, tobacco in Virginia), and government already ran in a corrupt way. There was virtually no middle class in the South. There was a small wealthy class (the slave owners), a largely poor White population, and the slaves. That was how the South operated for the most part in the antebellum days.
-There were already slave rebellions that had taken place, and slaves running away. Black slaves wanted to be free.
In short, the elites were trying to convince the poor Whites of the South that if they didn't secede, the Union would over run them, well, there are things to consider. The way things were run in the South during those times wasn't that good anyway. The elites ran it that way, and were intending to keep it that way.
Why was the civil war fought?
I was always told that it was slavery
but now I find a lot of Southerns saying that it was because of the Federal government and economy.
The reason I ask is because I was reading some about the Civil War and found a speech given by the Vice-President of the Confederacy when the new government was formed.
It is because of the federal government and the economy. The end of slavery by the federal government would have been an economic burden for the south. The north was industrializing while the south was still had an agriculture based economy.
It is because of the federal government and the economy. The end of slavery by the federal government would have been an economic burden for the south. The north was industrializing while the south was still had an agriculture based economy.
It doesn't get more clear than South Carolina's declaration of secession (first state to secede)
I'll quote it again... it clearly states why they were seceding
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
It doesn't get more clear than South Carolina's declaration of secession (first state to secede)
I'll quote it again... it clearly states why they were seceding
Dopo,
You don't seem to understand the theme of your own thread.. You asked 'Why was the Civil War fought ?'.. Not, 'Why did the South secede ?' They are two individual issues. Peaceful secession could've been accommodated, if the North exercised the will, and consideration, for the South's desire to leave. The North wasn't outraged, or called to arms, to prevent West(ern) Virginia seceding from Virginia. America itself was formed by essentially seceding from the British, empathy for that tradition was lost..
You've jumped on, and patronized people with opposing views in your thread.. Why create this thread, if you feel you already had a satisfactory answer to your own initial question ? peace.
Last edited by Babe_Ruth; 01-15-2015 at 09:48 PM..
The other part is that the war was started when the South attacked a union outpost in South Carolina (Fort Sumter) that was the direct cause of the war (similar to the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand to begin World War 1, the invasion of Poland to begin World War 2 and American involvement after Pearl Harbor was attacked.) The Confederate States seceded for the reasons everyone mentioned but didn't really need to fight over leaving the United States, the United States pretty much let them and it wasn't until Fort Sumter was attacked there was a nee for war.
Why was the civil war fought?
I was always told that it was slavery but now I find a lot of Southerns saying that it was because of the Federal government and economy.
The reason I ask is because I was reading some about the Civil War and found a speech given by the Vice-President of the Confederacy when the new government was formed.
Some southern chauvinists have made that argument for generations and it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If there had been no slavery, would southerners still have started a civil war (and they did start it)?
No. Slavery was the issue, specifically expansion of slavery to western territories.
You've jumped on, and patronized people with opposing views in your thread.. Why create this thread, if you feel you already had a satisfactory answer to your own initial question ? peace.
People would never learn anything if they assumed that what they think is 100% correct
That's why I started the thread and I have learned a lot about this the last few days.
People would never learn anything if they assumed that what they think is 100% correct
That's why I started the thread and I have learned a lot about this the last few days.
True. One thing to learn is this. As time changes, as some things and events changes, there are still some things that will remain.
The fundamental cause of the Civil War was a significant threat to the economic survival of the South. The "trigger" was slavery. Pardon my oversimplification here.
The heavily-industrialized North wanted to immediately wipe out slavery. Had that happened, the entire economy of the agrarian South (based on producing commodities like cotton and tobacco) would have collapsed. This isn't speculation, folks; this is fact-based.
Slavery was, and is, a horrible thing. With that said, one key to preventing the Civil War would have been a long-term, staged plan to help the South to transition from a slave-based economy to a non-slave-based economy. This required one thing the Abolitionists were not willing to provide -- T I M E.
Once again, this is an oversimplification. Please try to overlook the fact that I've failed to provide thoroughly-documented and -footnoted foundations for this contention.
-- Nighteyes
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.
