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 09-20-2017, 12:41 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,098 posts, read 13,113,729 times
Reputation: 10051

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
Ok, let's clear everything up
Go ahead and explain exactly why the civil war was about the South's state rights
No BSing, it has to be clear explanation
Before you question him any further, perhaps you should remember the Nullification Crisis which happened almost 30 years before the Civil War. Interestingly it was South Carolina, the first southern state to secede during the time of the Civil War, also threatened to secede in the early 1830s and was even raising an army to do so.

But the reason that South Carolina was threatening to secede during the Nullification crisis was not slavery, it was tariffs and state rights. Specifically South Carolina supported the State's Rights view that Federal tariffs were unconstitutional and therefore null in South Carolina.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

Now I still believe that the primary reason for the Civil War, both directly and indirectly was slavery. But to say it was 100% about slavery and nothing else, IMHO is totally wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2017, 12:51 PM
 
18,041 posts, read 25,061,271 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Before you question him any further, perhaps you should remember the Nullification Crisis which happened almost 30 years before the Civil War. Interestingly it was South Carolina, the first southern state to secede during the time of the Civil War, also threatened to secede in the early 1830s and was even raising an army to do so.

But the reason that South Carolina was threatening to secede during the Nullification crisis was not slavery, it was tariffs and state rights. Specifically South Carolina supported the State's Rights view that Federal tariffs were unconstitutional and therefore null in South Carolina.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

Now I still believe that the primary reason for the Civil War, both directly and indirectly was slavery. But to say it was 100% about slavery and nothing else, IMHO is totally wrong.
It's impossible to say that it's 100% anything
but the main was clearly the fact that northern states were not abiding by Federal laws to return runaway slaves to the South.

Give me a break,
because South Carolina had an issue with the Federal government 25 years before the civil war, you are going to tell me that the civil war started because the South was for State Rights.
Those are unrelated events.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 01:02 PM
 
18,041 posts, read 25,061,271 times
Reputation: 16721
South Carolina declaration of secession

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/prima...South_Carolina

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.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 01:42 PM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,741,279 times
Reputation: 8437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
South Carolina declaration of secession

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/prima...South_Carolina

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.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
Again, you are proving that SCs secession was about slavery....

Is that what you are intending to do or are you saying that what their secession document says is not true - that they were upset that non-slaveholding states enacted laws to deal with fugitive slaves. That is what most of the underlined portion is about - as stated free states enacted processes/procedures to review the cases of fugitives to ensure that slaves actually did belong to the people who were seeking to transport them out of the state - this occurred because free black citizens had been kidnapped by southern slave catchers. Maybe you are unaware that this occurred.

Also on a part of the underlined portion, that is in reference to white and black abolitionists who published newspapers advocating for abolition. The southern states wanted to silence abolitionists - people who wanted to end the institution either gradually or immediately. White southern sympathizers even murdered white journalists who were sympathetic to abolition.

Southerners were very paranoid about insurrection and understandably so. Keep people in chains working for free, breaking apart families, raping women, murdering people, etc., and you should be afraid that those you are oppressing, who outnumber you in many cases, may very well "break" and kill you. Insurrections were much more common than people are aware. Instead of blaming their own actions regarding the poor treatment of their chattel slaves, many southerners blamed free blacks and abolitionists for "ruining" their slaves with "books" and "pictures" and "emmisaries" as mentioned in the article (sorry but I lol at this especially the part about books since slaves weren't allowed to read. Many southern states also basically forced the free blacks to leave in large numbers including both NC and SC by stripping them of their rights following the Nat Turner insurrection).

As I stated earlier, I take a particularly intense interest in this period of our history from a black perspective, both the free black and enslaved based on my own genealogical interest and a blog I write on the subject. I don't get upset that people don't learn about this sort of thing in school, even though I know the activities of free blacks in particular (including those who had escaped slavery and lived in the north between 1850 and 1861) were very important to the leading up to the war itself and the admission of blacks into the army and the eventual emancipation proclamation. This story is not readily told and that is because it is not a huge primary focus of the war. The primary reason for the war was slavery and political disagreement over the institution. I'm hoping you realize that the portion you quoted from SC backs what I and others are saying in this regard. It really was, simply put, about slavery.

ETA: Please note the blue portion. Those are about "slavery." Any reference to "property" in all the articles of secession are about slaves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 02:18 PM
 
9,694 posts, read 7,330,596 times
Reputation: 9931
i was never taught the civil war in public school. we got to war of 1812 and that wass it. what i learned about the civil war was from the statues around town and nearby cities
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 02:45 PM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,851,063 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
On this, I honestly have no motivations in simplifying the cause of the war. IMO and the opinions of most people, the defining, primary cause of the war was political disagreements over slavery.

I think people who deny this particular motivation, when it is in fact a primary reason for the war, are odd. I don't think they want to "re-write history" but I do think that they are looking at minor issues of that era and trying to make them bigger than they actually were (and they also ignore the fact that those minor issues are indeed "slavery" based - like the states rights thing and the property rights thing and the economic issue thing).

From your own posts on the subject, I know that you know that slavery was the primary cause of the war. The idea that K-12 school education in America should teach that there was some other primary cause is kind of ridiculous to me since everyone knows (unless they are being wilfully ignorant) that that is the primary cause - disagreements over slavery.

I also agree that there are hundreds of thousands (millions actually) experiences of soldiers and lay persons and all other types of Americans on both sides. But the cause of the war was a political disagreement over slavery and that is a simple reason. History cannot be re-written on this incident in our nation considering we have the documents that state the reasons for secession, by the secessionist themselves, along with the constitution of the CSA all of which highlight those political reasons being over protecting "property rights" of owners of slaves and the institution itself.
The problem when you tell a high school student that otherwise knows nothing else, that the primary cause of the war was slavery, then fail to elaborate, the logic immediately leads one to believe the war was basically over civil rights which couldn't be further from the truth. There were abolitionist (in both the North and South) who's motivations were strictly humanitarian, but the war wasn't fought to further a humanitarian cause. It was a war over differing economies, regional sectarianism and loss of political parity. Freed blacks in the North were not necessarily welcomed with open arms and racism was just as rampant on both sides of the Mason Dixon Line. New York City's wealth was tied to the cotton trade and the city itself shared Southern sympathies. Civil War's dirty secret about slavery - CNN.com
High school history largely downplays the economics and politics behind the war.

The two regions were founded by two different groups of people. Northern colonies were founded by religious dissidents, while the southern colonies were founded by proprietary companies looking for cash crop profits. By the start of the war they had vastly differing and conflicting economies. The South's export driven economy required cheap import tariffs for finished European goods, while the North required high import tariffs to protect their own economies. By the start of the Civil War, the South had more trade with Britain and France than it did with the North. The problem with slavery in the south was it was working too well. By the start of the Civil War the South was producing 2/3rds of the world's cotton. If no slave was ever freed, the two economies would continue to have competing interest at the national level. A 21st century equivalent would be pitting modern coastal urban economies against rural Midwestern ones.

The Missouri Compromise kept the peace temporarily by allowing one free state for every slave state. This would be the 19th century equivalent of allowing our modern political parties to gerrymander new territories as voting states that are either Republican or Democrat. As long as they're one for one, all is peaceful and government is balanced. When that compromise broke down the writing was on the wall that the South's future electoral maps would no longer sustain their economy and power at the national level, so seceding at that point seemed like the best option for the future survival. They were after all sitting on the country's most valuable exports and Texas had just recently defeated Mexico with far less so at the time, it seemed viable.


Slavery was the key divisive feature between the two regions, but not necessarily from a humanitarian standpoint like some would be made to believe.
As I've mentioned in other threads, if the war is taught to be only about slavery, then the lessons of history remain unlearned. After reading through the California secession threads after the last election (and the Texas secession threads after the one before) it dawned on me that a small but vocal minority is basically going down the same rabbit hole the South did probably because they were so focused on the actual slavery semantics, they can't the forest through the trees as it would apply today. Sure some truly educated historians know better, but elections are not held by historians, they're held by people with a rudimentary, simplified understanding of history who get their opinions from Facebook.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 02:58 PM
 
18,041 posts, read 25,061,271 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
The two regions were founded by two different groups of people. Northern colonies were founded by religious dissidents, while the southern colonies were founded by proprietary companies looking for cash crop profits. By the start of the war they had vastly differing and conflicting economies.
You are stating something that was a given fact in that time
That's why Lincoln said that he wouldn't abolish slavery if that preserved the union.

Everybody knew the North was free and South was pro-slavery.
The issue is what I stated several times..... slaves were running away to free states and the South kept on passing federal laws to force the North to return runaway slaves.

The Northern states felt that slavery was being imposed on them by the South through the federal government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 03:02 PM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,851,063 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
You are stating something that was a given fact in that time
That's why Lincoln said that he wouldn't abolish slavery if that preserved the union.

Everybody knew the North was free and South was pro-slavery.
The issue is what I stated several times..... slaves were running away to free states and the South kept on passing federal laws to force the North to return runaway slaves.

The Northern states felt that slavery was being imposed on them by the South through the federal government.
So it becomes a battle over who runs the federal government. And whoever gets majority next election can change laws to guarantee their future in running the federal government forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 03:06 PM
 
18,041 posts, read 25,061,271 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
So it becomes a battle over who runs the federal government. And whoever gets majority next election can change laws to guarantee their future in running the federal government forever.
And guess who was in control of the federal government and who was in favor of "State rights"

Personal Liberty Laws - Essential Civil War Curriculum

The personal liberty laws of the northern “free” states, enacted between 1780 and 1859, protected African-Americans from kidnapping and from being claimed as fugitive slaves. Slave-holding states complained that the laws violated the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. Abolitionists responded that a fundamental principle of state sovereignty was that states could define the status of its inhabitants and protect them in their liberty. When secession came in the winter of 1860 and 1861, the slave states that seceded cited the personal liberty laws as evidence of the failure of northern states to uphold their end of the constitutional bargain.

In 1859 the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Ableman v. Booth affirming that the Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional and any state laws contravening it were null and void. The ruling had little effect on abolitionists who continued to use state laws to thwart fugitive slave reclamations.



How can anybody read that and say that Civil War was not about slavery???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
30,702 posts, read 79,356,279 times
Reputation: 39415
Quote:
Originally Posted by westsideboy View Post
Here is the crazy thing.............I don't remember being taught in high school (mid-90s) that slavery caused the Civil War. Our teacher was very much of the "it's complicated" school of thought and presented us with the many factors (including slavery) that contributed to the conflict. I specifically remember also being told that in "the old days" slavery was presented as a simple answer to the question.

I went to private school and had an outstanding teacher, so maybe that is the difference. There was no set curriculum he had to teach by in our school.

In all honesty, I think 99.9% of Americans miss the mark on the Civil War because we don't understand nationalism. That is what the war was, our war of Nationalism. The South were experiencing an ethno-genesis caused by the radical changes immigration and industrialization was having on the North. The Southern states had always seen themselves as different, but by the 1860s saw themselves as a 'nation' apart from their neighbors to the north. To this end, slavery was very important in causing the war. The peculiar institution was a common bond in these states and their support of it was a common cause that forced them together. They saw themselves as the "Americans" and the North as some strange new creation that would be the end of their culture and society.

If you understand the war from this POV, the "lost cause" mentality makes perfect sense and needs no pivot to hidden motives or racial hate. The ethno-genesis was completed, even though the war was lost. The common heroes, landmark events, and shared history had been formed even in defeat. The South lost the war, but maintained the distinct identity they created.

What Lincoln proposed for the USA, and what most Americans still consider to be our MO today, is that of a crown-state without a king. We owe our allegiance not to shared blood, religion, or even heritage, but to our unique system of government. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution function as our King. Regardless of where we come from, or where we are going, we all agree that these documents expresses our feelings about ourselves and each other, and govern how we act and what freedoms we possess. It was a stroke of genius by Lincoln, one that built upon the ideas of the Founders, and was a salve for a country at war and unsure of what we really were.

Fast forward 150+ years, and America is undergoing another ethno-genesis. Nationalism is grass-roots right now in our country..............and it isn't hard to see how many citizens, and nearly all establisment politicians are simultaniously horrified by the concept, and mostly ignorant as to what why it is happening.
You had better teachers than some of us. That is advanced thinking for high school history, because they tend to teach to the lowest level of ability to absorb the teachings.

The quote above is the best informed or at least best expressed post in this thread. If you want to boil it down to ridiculously simplistic generalizations - the war was about "You cannot tell me what to do" Slavery was a trigger for many people not for all, but the real issue was who was in charge of everyone else.

. We are going there again it seems. The extremists are loud and divisive while the majority in the middle just get carried along. I doubt it was any different then. We are divided now not because of gay marriage, or wedding cakes, or Immigration, or abortion, or human impact climate change, but because one side does not want the other side to have control and neither side will listen to the other. That is the bottom line. Everyone's specific trigger issue is different and often changing. We are once again divided by the concept that we do not want the other guys to be in charge of us. We criminalize, dehumanize ridcule the other side without listening at all to what they say or thinking about their reasons. I frequently hear or see "I stopped listening after the third word he said" or similar. No one will listen. I am right and they are wrong. If they utter one word contrary to my sides beliefs, they are bad and evil and deserve death and should burn in hell.

We can point to one trigger issue or another, now or then, but the real issue is who is in charge of everyone else.


Look at all the current talk of splitting up the country or secession. It is not because of any one trigger issue, it is because extremists on one side simply cannot tolerate the idea of extremists on the other side being in charge of them. Sure slavery was a trigger with a huge moral component, but so is abortion (one side sees it as the mass murder of babies the other says they are not human - sound familiar?), some would say so is Gay marriage and wedding cakes and the right to sue employers who fire gay people (one side says it is protecting persons who are oppressed and treated like subhumans, the other says there is not problem or they do not deserve protection - sound familiar?). But the real issue today, as then, is who gets to say what the others must do and think.

The talk today is not all that different from the 1830s - 1850s. How many states have made noise about succession already? (two that I am aware of, (California and Texas)). Are we headed for another split in 30 - 50 years? Look through Citydata and you will find many threads about people wanting to move from a red or blue state to a red or blue state. We are separating further and further every month. No one I know has ever seen divisiveness like we have today, not even older people, but I would bet people from 1850 would find it hauntingly familiar.

Did they really think the country could split apart over the issues? From what I read - no. until shortly before the war, no one thought it would actually go that far, but many people thought maybe it should. Still it seems it was a shock to many people when it happened.

If the country splits or explodes again, in 150 years people will be trying to say it was all about abortion or all about gay marriage, or all about climate. They will be only partially correct. The westsideboys of the future will come along and say it was all about "You cannot tell me what to do" - they will be correct.

Last edited by Coldjensens; 09-20-2017 at 03:19 PM..
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