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.
Read the Declarations of Secession for Southern States that decided to issue such documents. In EVERY document there is either a reference to slavery or a reference to the fact that Southern state were protesting that fact that they felt that Northern states where not honoring Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution. This is known as "The Fugitive Slave Clause".
So why go all the trouble of mentioning slavery or mentioning the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution if slavery wasn't a critical issue in motivating the secession of Southern states?
Stop being obtuse and read my post that YOU quoted.
Although I think it is worthy of debate that something else could have caused the Civil War, the institution of Slavery had a long tail of convoluted laws, acts, ordinances, that I think brought on the war. The fugitive slave act of 1793, the fugitive Slave law of 1850 and the personal property law passed in the north are a good examples of how slavery created convoluted law making.
The inherent hatred that Southerners and Northerners had for each other along with how confusing it would have been to ascertain if a person was a Freeman, Runaway, or in the transport of his masters made the issue of slavery the Chip on every ones shoulder.
Slavery was a national issue. The North was happily allowing individual states to resolve their issues as each state saw fit. That same accommodation was not afforded to the South.
Oh, puleeze! The Republican platform of 1860 in no way shape or form advocated the abolition of slavery or interference in the affairs of slave holding states.
4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state, to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
What the Republican's vowed to do was to disallow the expansion of slavery into the territories!
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
And to duly enforce the ban on slave importation:
9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.
I find it ironic that some people choose to celebrate what amounts to an act of rebellion and betrayal their own country by a group of people that found it socially, economically and poltically acceptable to use slave labor as part of their economic system.
The slave labor was a major component of the economy of the Southern United States. Anybody that doesn't believe the fight to keep slavery in the South wasn't a major factor in the Southern states chosing to secede from the Union is deluding themselves in order not to confront the reality the leaders in the South were driven by their economic interests which included keeping slavery as part of their economic system.
You can say the Civil War was about states' rights all you want. But it was about states rights to enslave people.
Also one only need to look at the Articles of Secession for the states in the South to how vital an issue slavery was in their decision to secede.
Slavery was a key issue because it was a major component of Southern economies. But part of the reason it was such a major component was because the North was complicit in the development of that Southern economy. Agrarian economies by their very nature are money-poor, land rich. The Southern economy was a perfect example. And the North helped to keep it so. It was Northerners who benefited from the slave trade, and when that became problematic, they still benefited themselves via the insurance and bank business to profit from slavery.
Despite the mythology that has sprung up about the two regions, there were abolitionists active in both the North AND the South. There were slave owners who were willing to discuss abolitioning slavery, but who wanted to do so in a rational way, where they would have been compensated for their lost investments and where abolition could have been accomplished over time, as was happening in Northern states. To simply abolish slavery was to condemn the South to a devastating economic depression that would last decades. Is any region of the country simply going to submit to such a stark reality?
The problem was that the South's political power on the federal government was waning. They didn't have the political means to devise a rational solution to the slavery issue, and if they didn't have the power to influence national policy with regards to the election of a President, or with how to deal with a key economic issue, what kind of future did this region have? To be dictated to by the urban Northern interests? It is the imbalance in a democracy between rural and urban interests that caused many of the compromises of the original Constitution. That political imbalance continues to be a sticking point politically, even today. Take a long, hard look at the Tea Party movement. Instead of making fun of it, recognize it for what it is, a symptom of the problem of political imbalance that is integral to a democratic system of government. Even though we are a republic, with a system that was devised to address this imbalance, the imbalance has grown substantially over the years. The Civil War dealt with the imbalance in a way that cost millions of Americans' lives and devastated the economy of the South for generations. The institution of slavery cannot be separated from the issues of antebellum America, but the simplification of the Civil War to a single issue is also patently unfair, not just to the South, but to the United States as a country, and to the men and women on both sides who deserve better than such short shrift from history.
Oh, puleeze! The Republican platform of 1860 in no way shape or form advocated the abolition of slavery or interference in the affairs of slave holding states.
4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state, to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
What the Republican's vowed to do was to disallow the expansion of slavery into the territories!
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
And to duly enforce the ban on slave importation:
9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.
Unfortunately, the platform and the person the Republican party promoted, was not promoted in the South, was not on the ballot in the South, was elected without a single vote from the South. This was not a case of the South wanting a different candidate and having a voice. The simple fact of the 1860 election was that the leader of the nation was elected by one region of the country, not by the country as a whole. It was a demonstration of the political power of the Republican party, a party that hadn't existed in 1850, and a party that did not need to concern itself with the South's complaints. It could elect a President without the South, it could develop national policy without input from the South, it could dictate to the South any policy it wanted. It had the numbers, the South didn't.
It saddens me that our schools do such a poor job that a foreign national (I assume, based on your screen name) knows more about our history than some of the folks who were born here.
In our Civil War, who was "wrong" and who was "right" is largely determined by who wins. Just like most/all wars... "History is written by the victors." -Winston Churchill
P.S. Slavery was only a minor consideration for going to war.
Lincolns Gettysburg Address was in 1863 if slavery was such a major factor in the division of the country why didn't they grant freedom for the slaves earlier? Free blacks swelled the Union Armies ranks turning the war in the Norths favor.Most of the so called good ole boys were poor and white and don't forget blacks who fought for the CSA who were promised freedom before the North.
I do find it troubling that the SCV is trying to minimize the role of slavery in the civil war. it is obviously a critical issue.
Then on the other hand, I find it troubling that the NAACP head feels comfortable making a claim about "what the Civil War means to white southerners." I don't feel that he's in a position to dictate what anything really means to someone else. That is tremendously arrogant.
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.
Civil War Being Re-branded, without the Slavery
