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.
Not entirely correct. Yes there where well documented cases of human abuse the evils of Slavery. However some Planation's treated Black as employees and provided for the need s of the people. Not wide spread by any means, but by time of 1861 perception were changing.
Many Blacks fought for the CSA, ironic?
Commerce and state Rights were the Chief Cause of the civil War.
Of course a Bloody Conflict ensued.
Yeah, right. They were lining up around the block to enlist. Just for the inaliable right for they and their families to be slaves.
Please note, I am a southern white conservative. if I have one utter and complete dislike it is for the PROG-ACTIVIST that seeks to bully people into bending to their demands in word, deed and thought.
the fact that these despicable humans happen to be on the right side of this issue makes me kind of sad, and I have to fight the natural desire to take the opposite side just because of my utter dislike for these quasi-humans.
that being said, this is simple people. The confederate battle flag was the rally symbol for racism and subjugation of "free" black people in AMERICA less than 50 years ago.
The simple fact is, if you are black in America and have any historical perspective from the middle part of the 20th century (less than a lifetime ago and certainly NOT 150 years ago) you know that the Confederate Battle Flag was the banner under which, white people sought mightily to extend the brutal subjugation of "free" blacks...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
They seceded because they didn't want to give up their slaves.
Lets be clear here. In 1860, the United States was functionally two different countries. Why? Because there were two different economic systems which were incompatible with each other, and in direct competition with each other.
The southern economy was agricultural(and yes, relied heavily on slavery), and the northern economy was industrial.
An agricultural economy wants low tariffs, low taxes, and a small government. An industrial economy wants high protectionist tariffs, and wants heavy government investment in infrastructure and industry(IE high taxes).
The southern agricultural economy in effect would be the equivalent of a "libertarian" economy + slavery. And the northern industrial economy, would be the equivalent of modern corporatism. It needs government protections, subsidies, a national banking system, etc.
In Georgia's secession declaration, they wrote...
Quote:
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day.
Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.
The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution.
This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.
Slavery on its own didn't cause the Civil War, but slavery was the necessary ingredient for the division of the country into two separate economic zones. Both of these zones vied for control of the Federal government, to protect themselves from the other.
To understand, imagine if literally half of the country was West Virginia, and your entire economy was built on "coal". And the other half of the country was made up of Al Gores.
If your entire livelihood depends on coal, you'll tend to defend it. And you'll be absolutely terrified of the Al Gores, who want to make it illegal to mine the coal. At the same time, Al Gore isn't even himself genuinely interested in the environment, he is nothing but a carbon-credit peddler. And hopes to make big-bucks from the move to "green-energy".
Then on the flip-side, imagine yourself being Al Gore, and you realize that you can make a LOT of money by pushing forth a green agenda, regardless of if you actually believe it yourself, or even care. So you push for the government to "do something about the environment", and pretend that you are on the "right side of history", even when all you actually care about is the money.
The reality of the Civil War, was that you had the Northerners, who wanted to use the Federal government for the benefit of the Northern economy, at the expense of the south. And you had a south who wanted basically to get rid of the Federal government altogether, because they didn't need it. And further, the south did not believe that the Constitution gave the Federal government the power to pass laws specifically for the benefit of one state(or a group of states) at the expense of another state(or group of states). They believed that the Constitution made each state co-equal, and that the government could only act in the interests of all the states.
In short, the Civil War was fought over what powers were granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. And more importantly, whether or not the states had the rights Jefferson declared they did in the Kentucky resolution.
The Civil War settled the issue, the states do not have rights. Which some have accepted, and some others have not.
As Jefferson said....
"The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
To understand, imagine if literally half of the country was West Virginia, and your entire economy was built on "coal". And the other half of the country was made up of Al Gores.
If your entire livelihood depends on coal, you'll tend to defend it. And you'll be absolutely terrified of the Al Gores, who want to make it illegal to mine the coal. At the same time, Al Gore isn't even himself genuinely interested in the environment, he is nothing but a carbon-credit peddler. And hopes to make big-bucks from the move to "green-energy".
Your analogy is way off. Imagine a country that was dependent on coal but nobody wanted to work for your low wages so you has to capture and enslave people in order to mine it.
In short, the Civil War was fought over what powers were granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. And more importantly, whether or not the states had the rights Jefferson declared they did in the Kentucky resolution.
Redshadowz, I am as conversant on the subject of the Civil War as just about anyone around here. I am very aware of the inputs that included a number of things that include but are not limited to slavery.
However MY point is the current discussion has very little to do with the civil war. That is just a rabbit trail. The real issue with the Battle Flag is not what happened 150 years ago. what matters is what happened 50 years ago.
trying to move this back to an issue of the civil war white washes what happened in the 20th century.
It was about States rights, that's why the South was so angry about a tyrannical central government forces states to say hand over runaways that they consider citizens, (fugitive slave act) or recognize that slaves are still slaves if they where bought in the south and their owner moved to a state where slavery was illegal.(Dred-Scott) That's grievous violations of states rights pushed the south to war.
Your analogy is way off. Imagine a country that was dependent on coal but nobody wanted to work for your low wages so you has to capture and enslave people in order to mine it.
That is a stupid analogy because that has nothing to do with what was actually going on in the country.
The vast majority of Southerners never owned a slave, many never even came in contact with slaves. In fact, a rather large percentage of the south absolutely despised slavery. Lincoln's Vice President in 1864, Andrew Johnson, was from Tennessee, and wanted to abolish slavery, because he felt it created a sort of "aristocracy" in the south. With wealthy planters who owned pretty much everything, ruling over the poor whites, who owned nothing, and who also had to compete against cheap slave labor.
The vast majority of southerners didn't actually benefit from slavery at all. Only the rich actually argued in favor of slavery.
To the extent that the rich were able to convince the poor white southerners to maintain slavery. They would make arguments that the abolition of slavery would have ex-slaves loose in the streets, raping white women, killing their former masters, and looting and stealing from every white person they could find. Basically, that freeing the slaves would be a race war. That they only had to look at the Haitian revolution to see what would happen to them.
In fact, not only were poor whites terrified of these slaves being unleashed against whites. Even the slave-owners themselves were terrified of slave-uprisings. After the Haitian revolution, Jefferson was downright paranoid.
"These objections (to the abolition of slavery) are often urged with a show of sincere solicitude for the welfare of the slaves themselves. It is said, what will you do with them? they can't take care of themselves; they would all come to the North; they would not work; they would become a burden upon the State, and a blot upon society; they'd cut their masters' throats; they would cheapen labor, and crowd out the poor white laborer from employment; their former masters would not employ them, and they would necessarily become vagrants, paupers and criminals, overrunning all our alms houses, jails and prisons. The laboring classes among the whites would come in bitter conflict with them in all the avenues of labor, and regarding them as occupying places and filling positions which should be occupied and filled by white men; a fierce war of races would be the inevitable consequence, and the black race would, of course, (being the weaker,) be exterminated."
I think that statement by Frederick Douglass is kind of funny, because isn't that effectively the same criticism of black people in this country to this day?
The Democrat Confederate States seceded because Republicans won and had the noble goal to end slavery.
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.
Why did the Confederate states secede?
