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.
The reason WAS indeed because the confederacy believed that the union was infringing upon the states' rights to govern themselves. And according to the Constitution, that is exactly what was happening. The governance that the union wished to stop was the ability to stop slavery, to which the southern states believed to be vital to their commerce at the time.
So you're saying that, at the tail end of the Buchanan administration, the federal government was going to outlaw slavery throughout the nation, thereby infringing upon states' rights to govern themselves?
Well, I will just say that based on the Confederate states' Declarations of Secession, I'd say that the CONFEDERATE states (not just the Union states) considered continuing slavery to be an integral part of the issue.
Direct quotes from various Confederate Declarations of Secession and/or Confederate governors:
I mean, dang - how much more obvious does it need to be?
Long story short version: Jubal Early & the 'Lost Cause' revisionists re-branded the American Civil War.
It'd be ridiculous & personally, I'd be content to leave it at that, if it wasn't so harmful to the United States of America right on up to the present day.
Thomas Jefferson called slavery a moral depravity and a hideous blot on the nation. He worried that without emancipation the nation was at risk. He also believed that all freed slaves would have to be immediately expelled from the country because he feared they would seek revenge. But, there you go.
"Free blacks in America were first documented in 1662 in Northampton County, Virginia. By 1776, approximately eight percent of African Americans were free."
That was when he was younger--he grew more for slavery 30 years later.
But then, his attitude mirrored what was going on across the south during that period. Slavery had always across Christendom been considered a sin, but a lucrative one--at best along the lines of prostitution and rum-running--but never a "good"thing. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, even slaveholders such as Jefferson felt that way.
But over the first thirty years of the 1800s, something spiritually fundamental changed for the worse in the south.
Quote:
But over the first thirty years of the 1800s, something spiritually fundamental changed for the worse in the south.
I don't believe that one for a minute. It was against the law to teach the black folks to read, but they were doing it any way in the basements of their homes, and the book they taught from was ... I'll give you three guesses, and it has a story about Moses in it.
Slavery may have been the immediate cause, but the question being asked is if slavery hadn't existed, would other issues have arisen to cause a civil war. Any cursory study of history will tell you that the North and South were very different places, and that tensions between the two weren't just about slavery. They were essentially two different countries. The northern states had been settled by people escaping from Europe. The southern states had been settled by people extending Europe's influence. The northern states were urban/trade-oriented. The southern states were rural and agrarian. The northern states were small. The southern states were large. (Massachusetts can fit into Georgia five times). And that size is an issue when it comes to representation in the federal government.
The bottom line was that democracies, even democratic republics, always, inevitably, give the advantage to urban areas. The southern states prior to the Civil War felt they were providing the bulk of monies to fund the federal government, while all the benefit of the tariffs went to the North which was in the throes of industrialization. They had a point.
The crux of the problem as the South saw it was that that democratic advantage was growing, as the urban centers of the north attracted more and more immigrants. And their concerns were proven correct when Abraham Lincoln won the election in 1860, without appearing on a single ballot in the South. If the North could elect a President without any contribution from the South, the North would control the executive branch. The North would eventually control the legislative branch due to their population growth. And their dominance would inevitably spread to the judicial branch.
Southern politicians weren't stupid. They were very much aware of the North's growing dominance of the federal government, and they were depending on the independence of the individual states from the federal government. The individual states before the Civil War had much more autonomy than they do now. And it's important to understand that as Southern politicians were becoming aware of their tenuous relationship with the Federal government, that the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence, wasn't all that long ago. It wasn't centuries ago. it was just a few decades. The South had fought, like the North, for independence from a government that had an agenda that used and abused them. After fighting for that, the South was now looking into a future where the federal government again had an agenda that potentially used and abused them. Paying for the federal government to advance the interests of the North at the expense of the interests of the South.
If the Union was so powerful, why was there a need for a more perfect union? If they were doing so fine on their own dime, they wouldn't have needed the Confederate state's (taxes) so let them leave the union. It has already been established they didn't put Lincoln in office ... so why was it so bloody important for all the states to come together, that there was an all out war over it?
The reason WAS indeed because the confederacy believed that the union was infringing upon the states' rights to govern themselves. And according to the Constitution, that is exactly what was happening. The governance that the union wished to stop was the ability to stop slavery, to which the southern states believed to be vital to their commerce at the time. In hindsight, we all know (both north and south) that slavery is inhumane and should never be allowed.
But in those days, it meant potentially disrupting commerce for this part of the country where farming was the means to survival for most people. We now have equipment and machinery that do most of that work for us. It wasn't an option at the time.
In today's times...... imagine the Government stepping in to tell us that we were going to have our firearms confiscated and that we would no longer be able to own a firearm, although the Constitution gives us that right.
People would be outraged because it is a direct violation of those rights. Before you say that this is an apples and oranges comparison... is it really? Our laws (even those in which people disagree with) are based on the Constitution. To change a law means to amend the Constitution, and that has to happen first, not after the fact. THAT is what the war was about.
In those days slaves were considered a necessary tool and not people. (Again, NOT attempting to argue the morality of it since it wasn't considered immoral when slavery was brought here) Guns are considered a necessary tool for many people.
You've asserted that "in hindsight, we all know (both north and south) that slavery is inhumane and should never be allowed."
This is the thing, folks back then also knew owning people as property was inhumane. They just rationalized, legitimized & justified the practice of race-based slavery. (We do the same in the present day with respect to different yet also inhumane practices.)
That's the #1 reason why Jubal Early created the 'Lost Cause' mythologies.
The 'Lost Causers' revised the narrative, re-branded the War to be justifiable & therefore honorable despite what is clearly spelled out in the CSA Consitution, in the US Congressional legislative record, in each Slave State's 'cause for secession' documents, in speeches, in newspaper accounts, & in letters from soldiers.
Why the need to 'whitewash' all of this?
& the littering of free spaces with the monuments, the statuary, & the memorials & all to disguise what is clearly written in the historical record made no sense then, & makes no sense now more than a century later. The statues, etc. belong in cemeteries or museums. That would be the honorable thing to do. Let them rest in peace, & be finally done with the perpetual warring.
Technically, it wasn't about slavery. It was about States Rights. They believed the States should have the right to decide the issue for themselves, not the Federal Government.
Technically it was about Slavery.
And the South wanted the Federal government to determine slavery for everyone.....up until they lost control of the federal government.
The South was the region that violated states' rights more than any other region in the decades leading up to secession. The South would frequently abuse states' rights if it could strengthen the national government in a manner to protect slavery.
The South was extremely inconsistent on states' rights and sometimes openly hostile against it, while it was always consistent on protecting the institution of slavery.
The irony is that a lot of contemporaries BEFORE secession thought that it was MASSACHUSETTS that was the defender of states' rights as they constantly opposed the South's expansion of the federal government to secure slavery at the expense of the states.
I can give you over a dozen examples of the South seeking to diminish state/local rights in the name of a stronger national government to protect slavery, but I have to get ready for work, so let's start with the biggest anti-states' right piece ever passed before the Civil War - pushed by Southerners.
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.
