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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2017, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
30,708 posts, read 79,793,239 times
Reputation: 39453

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe from dayton View Post
You don't learn the whole story about anything in high school. What do you have, 300 years of US history compressed into how many hours of classroom time.

Yes, the South was "angry" of state's rights issues, particularly the right to own slaves. Read the secession documents of the Confederate States; you will clearly see that secession was about slavery.

Edit: It is easy to pontificate when participants clearly and voluminously wrote about their motivations and experiences in the war -- no one has to guess anything.
Only some participants - not all. Not most. Are you saying everyone agreed with what was written as the basis in the secession documents? What would make you think there was general agreement? Do we agree to such things today? (hint - no we never agree on such things). Most were illiterate, so they did not write anything at all. At least some of them and very likely the vast majority had no idea what was written in the succession documents. There is some record of what some participants said when they were asked about such things, but very little.

Look at our nation's revolution. Were everyone's reasons for breaking with England set out in our documents? Did everyone agree on what was written in those documents? Even a majority? No and probably no. A plurality perhaps. A majority seemed to agree with the split, but everyone agreed with it for different reasons many of which were not stated in the documents. Some who disagreed with the split went along with it because they supported their countrymen. That is the same today, and there is no reason to believe that was not the case in 1861. There is nothing to indicate there was uniform agreement and everyone participate in the war for the exact same reasons. That seems pure fantasy.

So we have a stated reason drafted by some of the leaders which some other leaders agreed with while others disagreed. Does that tells us a reason or motive that can be generalized across all people? (Hint - no it cannot).

While is it currently popular to return to the "it was all about slavery" mantra, the pendulum will swing back in the other direction again someday. The reason being is there were many different reasons as there were many different people. It was not all about any one thing, so the pontificators can point to one document or another and claim they exclusively know what everyone's motive was and that motive can be anything they happen to chose. Then, like now, I will roll my eyes and snort at the arrogance and naive generalizations and let them pontificate until the pendulum swings back again.

It is interesting how we as people try to over simplify everything and boil it down to boxes of generalizations and then force everything into one box or another while rejecting everything else. "Fit my generalization or i will shout you down and call you stupid"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2017, 10:32 AM
 
3,465 posts, read 4,838,177 times
Reputation: 7026
No matter how you slice it or dice it, when you boil it all down, the Civil War was over slavery. Sure there were a few other things thrown in the mix but what you will hear people argue is it was over "states rights." What right were the states trying to protect?.........you guessed it....To continue to allow slavery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Ohio
1,217 posts, read 2,835,513 times
Reputation: 2253
USA was populated and founded by people who were political and religious dissidents in their native country so right off the bat we've got people on different sides. Slavery was illegal in Europe but this "new" USA country you could make your own rules...not.

Even in the very beginning northern states made slavery illegal and VA slaveowners like George Washington danced around the laws when he moved his slaves with him to New York and Philadelphia where the government was located.

It's never been about "states" rights, it's always been human rights and morality. States have no rights that are in opposition to the Bill of Rights this country was founded on. The south can use whatever words and flags they want but we all see what it's about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 11:25 AM
 
12,108 posts, read 23,274,107 times
Reputation: 27241
Coldjensens: Certainly not everyone participates in any war for the same reasons. The thought process of those responsible for the war is well documented, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 11:25 AM
 
14,993 posts, read 23,885,876 times
Reputation: 26523
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagardener View Post
USA was populated and founded by people who were political and religious dissidents in their native country so right off the bat we've got people on different sides. Slavery was illegal in Europe but this "new" USA country you could make your own rules...not.

Even in the very beginning northern states made slavery illegal and VA slaveowners like George Washington danced around the laws when he moved his slaves with him to New York and Philadelphia where the government was located.

It's never been about "states" rights, it's always been human rights and morality. States have no rights that are in opposition to the Bill of Rights this country was founded on. The south can use whatever words and flags they want but we all see what it's about.
I would usually opt out of this discussion about now. But your thread is an example of what the OP should try to avoid in seeking the truth and what I warned about earlier - information from the internet going the other way - just as inaccurate, just as biased:

-The northern states did not make slavery illegal "right off the bat" which I guess you mean when the constitution was first ratified. It was gradual, generally it was abolished before 1800 but in some instances you had legal slaves in northern states well into the 19th century.

-Likewise slavery was not "illegal" in Europe before, during, or after the revolution. At best laws were ambiguous, or defined by common law, with England for example having tens of thousands chattel slaves on that island until the mid 1700s when common law decree let them free...sort of. The slave trade continued by the European powers and in it's colonies until the early 1800s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 11:51 AM
 
18,129 posts, read 25,278,015 times
Reputation: 16835
Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid View Post
I am really thinking that American civil war Was the South being angry and feeling mistreated over states rights issues. It's far more complex than I realized. And I am now viewing the confederacy differently than I did before. The North invaded to beat the South back into submission to preserve the union not to stop slavery, that became a method to inflict pain on the southern economy.
That's false
here's a thread that explains all of it
//www.city-data.com/forum/histo...rights-21.html

The South was for "big government" enforcing the Fugitive Slave Clause (Constitution Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3)
that says:
"No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

That right there is the center of what caused the civil war
And it's stated in South Carolina's article of secession



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.

Last edited by Dopo; 09-19-2017 at 11:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 12:07 PM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,944,788 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
That's false
here's a thread that explains all of it
//www.city-data.com/forum/histo...rights-21.html

The South was for "big government" enforcing the Fugitive Slave Clause (Constitution Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3)
that says:
"No Person held to Service or Labour 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 Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

That right there is the center of what caused the civil war
And it's stated in South Carolina's article of secession
This still doesn't point to the whole story. North Carolina and Virginia seceded to avoid attacking other Southern states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 12:25 PM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,819,047 times
Reputation: 8442
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe from dayton View Post
You don't learn the whole story about anything in high school. What do you have, 300 years of US history compressed into how many hours of classroom time.

Yes, the South was "angry" of state's rights issues, particularly the right to own slaves. Read the secession documents of the Confederate States; you will clearly see that secession was about slavery.

Edit: It is easy to pontificate when participants clearly and voluminously wrote about their motivations and experiences in the war -- no one has to guess anything.
This is very true.

Those of you who overlook this fact are very odd to me.

On not "everyone agreeing with ______" that has nothing to do with the fact that secession was done by southern state over slavery and the war was started due to the secessionists attacking the northern union.

Those are simple things that I actually did learn in middle school. It was reinforced by AP history in high school and again in college and AGAIN through my self study and reading the actual "articles of secession" from various southern states.

It is very strange to me that people alive today want to defend or ignore the fact that the southern economy was heavily dependent on slavery and that its continuance was of vital importance to the ruling class in the south - who were the ones in charge politically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 12:31 PM
 
5,544 posts, read 8,314,247 times
Reputation: 11141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
This still doesn't point to the whole story. North Carolina and Virginia seceded to avoid attacking other Southern states.
and Tennessee had an agreement with NC that when/if one seceded then the other would.

so was entirely more complicated than some make it out to be. and could make an interesting 'what if' alternative history.

as to slavery being the over riding issue, Hot button dog whistle issues are not a new thing. appeal to the base as we do today, so how sincere were all these official documents?

Shelby Foote mentioned something that I had forgotten. In those days the soldiers of both sides enlisted with their town (not as we enlist today for national divisions e.g. 25th Inf, etc) and with their relatives, best friends, and neighbors. There really was no question at that time that they would serve, fight, and die with people close to them. They would fight and die together and would not let each other down until the end. Ideology was less a factor than location (north and south same same)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2017, 12:42 PM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,819,047 times
Reputation: 8442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
This still doesn't point to the whole story. North Carolina and Virginia seceded to avoid attacking other Southern states.
Virginia mentioned in its secession ordinance something about "oppression of slaveholding states." I'd have to look it up. Virginia had a pretty large plantation slave holding society in comparison to NC in particular.

FWIW I have very deep roots in VA and some families on my tree later moved to NC so I'm pretty familiar with their histories. IMO NC is an interesting case. I do not believe they mentioned slavery in their secession documents. The placement of the state between SC (which had a very slavery focused secession document) and VA put it in a precarious situation geographically for a war. NC also didn't have a large plantation society and many men were forced to fight for the CSA there. NC has an interesting history with the war. I remember I got interested in it after reading the novel "Cold Mountain" of which a movie was later made.

Basically NC made the wrong choice but they had their backs up against the wall. They also did join the CSA and the CSA itself was very much attached to the idea of "property rights" and the "natural order" of whites being superior to black/African slaves. So they went along with the whole slavery thing by joining the CSA.

Neither went along to "avoid attacking other southern states." Virginia was protecting its wealthy plantation class who owned slaves. NC was in the middle and joined in an effort to protect itself from CSA aggression, which I do believe would have occurred if they had not joined the CSA.
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. The time now is 07:23 AM.

© 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