Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Yes, I did.
The contention above was that the South's rebellion had nothing to do with slavery. The linked document [Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union] says otherwise..
|
This is an outright lie. No one said the rebellion had nothing to do with slavery, slavery was one of the issues causing secession, but in no means the only issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
One complaint was that runaway slaves weren't being returned:
and the general right to own slaves:.
|
This was an uncontested breach of the Constitution that was being supported by the Northern States. At the point where the Northern States and the Federal Government refused to abide by the Constitution which was the contract by which the southern states agreed to join the union, the contract joining the southern states to the Union was null and void.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Thus, the main reason for secession was slavery. In fact, the entire document makes it clear that when it refers to "rights" it means the right to own another person, thus making slavery the sole issue of contention.
|
This is ridiculous. Slavery was legal, and therefore the right of the slave owners at the time. The issues at that time were the return of slaves as was the law under the Constitution, the tariffs which put nearly 75% of the tax burdens on the southern states, and the continuing acts of terrorism in the form of military style attacks, the Underground Railroad, and the continual attempts to create insurrection among the slaves.
In order for the Northern States and the Federal Government to have held the moral and legal high ground in this dispute, it would have been required to pass legislation outlawing slavery before succession. They did not because there was not the necessary amount of support for the radical abolitionist movement at that time.
The argument that the South fought the Civil War only to preserve the institution of slavery is false, as the south was already working in the direction of ending slavery as can be seen by the clause in the Confederate Constitution..
Art 1
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
The ending of slavery in the South was not by any means a simple matter as their entire economy was linked to it. There was also the issue of having to ensure the slaves would be prepared for freedom and not just be released without education or the abilities to care for themselves which would have prevented them from being the social and economic underclass they were after the North prevailed.
The North however cared little about the results of the war with the exception of the economic and political gains they would reap as a consequence.
Here is a perspective from a Southern general.
"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all that our enemies are fighting for.
It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” – Gen. Patrick Cleburne C.S.A. Jan 2 1864
Like any conflict there are always 2 sides, and the history written by the victor of any war usually only tells one side.
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.
