Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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)
 
Old 09-20-2015, 11:31 AM
 
2,563 posts, read 3,658,377 times
Reputation: 3572

Advertisements

I'm not going to read this whole thread, but I do know this: states rights are one thing, the support of slavery was something else again. And yes, the Civil War was about states rights in the first instance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2015, 02:58 PM
 
8,355 posts, read 7,303,756 times
Reputation: 8631
Quote:
Originally Posted by John7777 View Post
I'm not going to read this whole thread, but I do know this: states rights are one thing, the support of slavery was something else again. And yes, the Civil War was about states rights in the first instance.
Please explain then how the Civil War occurs if slavery had never been introduced into the North American continent.

I've never received an actual answer to this query.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2015, 03:18 PM
 
8,355 posts, read 7,303,756 times
Reputation: 8631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangokiwi View Post
They were told to leave and they refused to leave the Ft., so they left S. Carolina no choice but to fire on them. Their refusal to leave a foreign, independent State when they were ordered to was a hostile instigation on the part of the Union.
The federal government didn't recognize secession. For South Carolina to be a foreign, independent state, then some other independent government would have to recognize it as such.

Point of fact, the theory of secession grew from the theory of nullification. The theory of nullification grew from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and from Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions. The truth is that South Carolina's justification for nullification nor for secession rose to the standard Jefferson set in those documents.

Saying that South Carolina had a right to attack Fort Sumter is in the same vein as saying that Manuel Noriega had the right to attack and seize the Panama Canal Zone or that Fidel Castro had the right to attack and seize the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay.

It's the same as Al Qaeda justifying its attack on September 11th in retaliation for U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East.

Quote:
They were occupying the Ft. with the interest of controlling trade. The motivations were economic, which is really the main underlying cause of the War.
The federal government was occupying a federal installation, properly obtained through purchase from the South Carolina state government.

As for "economic", consider that the cost of the war far outstripped any taxes that could have been raised from the South. In fact, the South remained an economic drag upon the nation for over a century after the Civil War.

Quote:
Lincoln on the other hand swore he would never stop trying to re-unite the States for as long as he was President. He would not allow any of the Southern States to remain independent because the Union needed their money and their land, and he did not want the country to come apart.
Lincoln pledged his administration to preserving the Union. The alternative would have been the balkanization of the North American government. Instead of politicians coming to accommodation in a national government over disputes between the various factions, there would have been warfare between the various states. South Carolina's attack upon Fort Sumter proved as much.

Quote:
Lincoln was a white supremacist like everyone else was in the USA at the dawn of the Civil War.
No one disputes that the majority of the people in the United States in 1860 believed in white supremacy.

Quote:
Everyone believed that blacks were descended from the Biblical tribe of Ham and that they were therefore destined to serve the higher "tribes" including the whites. This was the justification for slavery.
Really? Falling back on a biblical reference to justify slavery? The only people who bought into that rationalization were the people who directly benefited from the institution.

Quote:
Nobody fought the Civil War to free the slaves. It was about money and control of land and resources. There were as many slaves in the Union as there in the South at the beginning of the war and throughout the war, slavery remained in the Union.
The South attacked the United States at Fort Sumter to force the U.S. government to quit ignoring its claim of secession. The United States government responded to put down insurrection. But slavery was at the heart of the dispute.

Please explain to us all how the Civil War occurs if slavery hadn't ever been introduced into the North American continent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2015, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,628,372 times
Reputation: 5660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
BS,
the articles of secession of The South clearly state that the main reason to secede was that the North was passing state laws (state rights) that violated the Constitution's "Fugitive Slave Clause" that says that slaves should be returned to their owners.

If that doesn't prove that the North was anti-slavery and pro-state rights, I don't know what else would
Your reaching here..... its kind of ironic that your using the FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW to argue your point that the NORTH was anti slavery.. perhaps your not sure what the FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW was...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2015, 10:27 PM
 
18,042 posts, read 25,069,612 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
Your reaching here..... its kind of ironic that your using the FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW to argue your point that the NORTH was anti slavery.. perhaps your not sure what the FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW was...
You forced me to quote myself
Read South Carolina's article of secession and then you'll understand


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
South Carolina was the first state to secede
Here's part of South Carolina's declaration of secession

Clearly stating that the main reason for secession was the violation of the Constitution's article IV that states that runaway slaves should be returned.
And saying that Northern States passing "State Laws" violated this article.




The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States - South Carolina

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."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,628,372 times
Reputation: 5660
^^ sorry but that in no way PROVES the North was anti slavery.. SHOW me a document produced by the NORTH proclaiming they were fighting this CIVIL WAR TO END SLAVERY...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 11:46 AM
 
18,042 posts, read 25,069,612 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
^^ sorry but that in no way PROVES the North was anti slavery.. SHOW me a document produced by the NORTH proclaiming they were fighting this CIVIL WAR TO END SLAVERY...
You are fighting against yourself
Nobody has said that the North fought the civil war to end slavery


AMERICAN DIGEST

Lincoln: "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."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,628,372 times
Reputation: 5660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
You are fighting against yourself
Nobody has said that the North fought the civil war to end slavery


AMERICAN DIGEST

Lincoln: "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."
exactly, I simply said the NORTH WAS NOT ANTI-SLAVERY.. thanks for helping prove my point!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 04:57 PM
 
18,042 posts, read 25,069,612 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
exactly, I simply said the NORTH WAS NOT ANTI-SLAVERY.. thanks for helping prove my point!
Wrong,
The North didn't go to war to end slavery
Northern States passed laws to not have to comply with the Constitution "Fugitive Slave Clause" (Return runaway slaves)

Take it however you want to take it. That's what Southern States said when they seceded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2015, 05:17 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 12 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,440 posts, read 16,536,029 times
Reputation: 29611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
And there was a right they believed even more strongly.
The right to leave the Union.
As I quoted at length before the Constitution has detailed provisions for admission of states, none for secession. From where you do you derive a right to leave the Union?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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 > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top