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.
If slavery had never existed, would there have been a Civil War?
No, the war was about slavery.
Additionally, the north's economy shifted to an industrial economy making slavery obsolete. When they were still an agrarian economy, they weren't so noble.
Indeed, the tide turns on many issues, but the tide had already turned on this one.
It was not considered an acceptable practice during the time of the Civil War.
Many nations had already outlawed it, there was widespread opposition in the U.S., rallies and speeches, underground railroads...
Southern slave owners had good reason to worry that public opinion was turning against them and they would soon be outvoted.
In 1860, the federal government had no power to eliminate slavery where it already existed. If secession and subsequent hostilities hadn't occurred, the only governments that could outlaw slavery in the southern states were the state governments in those southern states.
What really cheesed the landed gentry that controlled the various Southern states wasn't that they could be outvoted on the existence of slavery within their own states, but they could be outvoted in their efforts to spread slavery to the territories and to conquer new territories to enable slavery to expand further. They even wanted the right to take their slaves (aka personal property) into states that had already outlawed slavery (see Dredd Scott decision, which, among other things, legalized the right of slave owners to take their slaves into states that outlawed slavery).
There is no need to whitewash any of it. In those times it was considered an acceptable practice in the North and the South. Eventually people in the North began to realize that there was no need for slavery and pushed to abolish it. In the South, where slavery was a necessity to producing crops and maintaining their way of life, they didn't agree with that ideology and pushed back against the attempts to step on their rights to sovereign states.
I'm not arguing whether it was right or wrong. We all know the answer to that. However, my argument is that the ideologies in those days is much different than today. So trying to just say "They knew it was wrong but did it anyway" doesn't hold water.
Think back on how many polarizing issues like this that the country has faced.
Slavery
Gay rights/marriage
Abortion
Immigration
Every one of these issues were met with two sides... one who supported and one who opposed. Each group believes that their values are right. It takes time for an entire nation to come to an agreement on what is acceptable socially. Once something has become accepted socially, over time it becomes acceptable morally and through generations, people's moral values begin to align with those changes. Nothing happens over night.
If there was no need to whitewash, what was the purpose of fabricating the 'Lost Cause' mythologies?
If owning people as property was considered to be an "acceptable practice" back then, why did Robert E. Lee write the following in a letter to his wife?
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages."
The southern power structure in Antebellum America was often hostile against State and Local Rights:
-Supported the fraudulent Lecompton Constitution to force Slavery into Kansas against Kansas' wishes.
-Supported multiple Gag Resolutions that would prohibited state and city governments from petitioning the US Congress on any slave related issue.
-Supported removing runaway slave trials from the locality where they were caught to the federal courts.
-Supported forcing state and localities to make catching runaways the biggest top priority against their will.
-Supported forcing state and localities to open up their jails for slave catchers free of charge.
-Supported forcing all territories to admit slaves even against popular sovereignty.
-Opposed states freely choosing to allow their free-blacks to vote.
-Opposed states freely choosing to recognize their free-blacks as citizens.
-Opposed states freely choosing to create public schools that free-black children could attend.
-Supported measures to ban abolitionist messages from using the US Postal system, even from within the north.
-Supported measures to prohibit northern states from blocking southerners who lived in the north for years to not have their slaves with them in the north.
-Supported new and tougher laws against states, cities, and individuals accused of assisting or not turning in runaway slaves.
-Created a Confederate Constitution that prohibited secession (a right that they claimed they had under the USC, so this is a reduction in states' rights).
-Created a Confederate Constitution that prohibited a state from banning slavery from within its borders (a right that they had under the USC, so this is a reduction in states' rights).
Etc......
Here is a list of times the southern power structure was hostile towards slavery:
<crickets>
If the southern power structure was 100% consistent in promoting the health of slavery and frequently attacked and sought to reduce state and local rights in the name of slavery...was the true cause of secession slavery or being for states' rights?
What state right did the South fight for outside of slavery --- and don't say tariffs, because tariffs was not a states' right under the US or Confederate Constitution.
The southern power structure in Antebellum America was often hostile against State and Local Rights:
-Supported the fraudulent Lecompton Constitution to force Slavery into Kansas against Kansas' wishes.
-Supported multiple Gag Resolutions that would prohibited state and city governments from petitioning the US Congress on any slave related issue.
-Supported removing runaway slave trials from the locality where they were caught to the federal courts.
-Supported forcing state and localities to make catching runaways the biggest top priority against their will.
-Supported forcing state and localities to open up their jails for slave catchers free of charge.
-Supported forcing all territories to admit slaves even against popular sovereignty.
-Opposed states freely choosing to allow their free-blacks to vote.
-Opposed states freely choosing to recognize their free-blacks as citizens.
-Opposed states freely choosing to create public schools that free-black children could attend.
-Supported measures to ban abolitionist messages from using the US Postal system, even from within the north.
-Supported measures to prohibit northern states from blocking southerners who lived in the north for years to not have their slaves with them in the north.
-Supported new and tougher laws against states, cities, and individuals accused of assisting or not turning in runaway slaves.
-Created a Confederate Constitution that prohibited secession (a right that they claimed they had under the USC, so this is a reduction in states' rights).
-Created a Confederate Constitution that prohibited a state from banning slavery from within its borders (a right that they had under the USC, so this is a reduction in states' rights).
Etc......
Here is a list of times the southern power structure was hostile towards slavery:
<crickets>
If the southern power structure was 100% consistent in promoting the health of slavery and frequently attacked and sought to reduce state and local rights in the name of slavery...was the true cause of secession slavery or being for states' rights?
What state right did the South fight for outside of slavery --- and don't say tariffs, because tariffs was not a states' right under the US or Confederate Constitution.
Quite the list you got there. Excellent analysis of the question posed by the OP, thanks & respect from an interested member here.
All I'll add at this point is the pertinent parts of the summary at the following link ~ it's a line-by-line & side-by-side comparison of the US & CSA Constitution:
Quote:
Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was established by the United States constitution. It is therefore very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-"states' rights" country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away — the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to trade freely with each other, and, of course, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders.
States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system — the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach (some) federally-appointed officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit."
As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states' rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the "Supremacy" clause (Art. VI, Sec. 1[3]), the "Commerce" clause (Art. I, Sec. 8[3]) and the "Necessary and Proper" clause (Art. I, Sec. 8[18]). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpus or "suppress insurrections."
As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of anti-slave law or policy would be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" as much as they want, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land.
The southern power structure in Antebellum America was often hostile against State and Local Rights:
-Supported the fraudulent Lecompton Constitution to force Slavery into Kansas against Kansas' wishes.
-Supported multiple Gag Resolutions that would prohibited state and city governments from petitioning the US Congress on any slave related issue.
-Supported removing runaway slave trials from the locality where they were caught to the federal courts.
-Supported forcing state and localities to make catching runaways the biggest top priority against their will.
-Supported forcing state and localities to open up their jails for slave catchers free of charge.
-Supported forcing all territories to admit slaves even against popular sovereignty.
-Opposed states freely choosing to allow their free-blacks to vote.
-Opposed states freely choosing to recognize their free-blacks as citizens.
-Opposed states freely choosing to create public schools that free-black children could attend.
-Supported measures to ban abolitionist messages from using the US Postal system, even from within the north.
-Supported measures to prohibit northern states from blocking southerners who lived in the north for years to not have their slaves with them in the north.
-Supported new and tougher laws against states, cities, and individuals accused of assisting or not turning in runaway slaves.
-Created a Confederate Constitution that prohibited secession (a right that they claimed they had under the USC, so this is a reduction in states' rights).
-Created a Confederate Constitution that prohibited a state from banning slavery from within its borders (a right that they had under the USC, so this is a reduction in states' rights).
Etc......
Here is a list of times the southern power structure was hostile towards slavery:
<crickets>
If the southern power structure was 100% consistent in promoting the health of slavery and frequently attacked and sought to reduce state and local rights in the name of slavery...was the true cause of secession slavery or being for states' rights?
What state right did the South fight for outside of slavery --- and don't say tariffs, because tariffs was not a states' right under the US or Confederate Constitution.
"By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas."
_____________
In looking at their way of life in hindsight, (20/20, which is not at all) the dishonor we place on them, they would dishonor us if they saw what we have become today.
While we are distracted by this and statues, law makers are making it a hay day, I'm sure, to enact legislative statutes, that they otherwise could not get done if we were, paying attention to them.
If there was no need to whitewash, what was the purpose of fabricating the 'Lost Cause' mythologies?
If owning people as property was considered to be an "acceptable practice" back then, why did Robert E. Lee write the following in a letter to his wife?
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages."
Abraham Lincoln didn't even rid of slavery through The Emancipation Proclamation so it's a lost cause to prove that's why he waged an unjust war.
Tariffs for a central banking system goes that he set up the South to fire on Fort Sumter in their territory by the wayside went a Southern border.
X marks that cross the Confederate armies used for secession's a state right and that's fundamentally why the North decided to invade their order.
It takes a long time to destroy the countryside to void everything living in it that if Ulysses S. Grant could own slaves, it's not funny what's fodder.
The school system's text books used, the media markets, the constant misrepresentations made to continue to destroy the South for false ladders.
That Lincoln could lock up Northerners who said quite openly that he fenced the South into a war because they refused to buy from their factories.
They state in a book entitled "The South Was Right" that Lincoln dissolved the right to a fair hearing for the war cost he suspended habeas corpus.
The enemy may fight you over any issue they wish to make up to make it look as if you have lost the ability to reason or think past their $ masters.
Those who continue to destroy the South's right to secede to live free under the Articles of Confederation should take note that you're not master.
The uncultured acts of deliberate genocide against a defeated people who have been relentlessly beat up by fake news will to vie inside hell forever.
For all that money rules the defeat of the South that took on the same people who could care less that at the end of the day you all starve dumber.
That will serve you right when those you detest refuse to help you when you find yourselves all out of work when the whole system collapses in fear.
to be honest its hard to say. while the civil war was fought over states rights, the biggest for the south was slavery though it was legal under the constitution, there were many even in the south that wanted to abolish it.
the founding fathers also wanted to abolish slavery, but in order to maintain the original thirteen colonies, chose to let slavery be legal for the time being, recognizing that in the future the country would see fit to abolish slavery in the end.
one bit of contention before the civil war, was the placement of the mason/dixon line, the point of demarcation of where slavery was legal or not. for instance, if the line were in force today, here in southern arizona slavery would be legal, but in northern arizona it would not.
that said however, the federal government was getting too big and overbearing, and a number of states objected to that. so even without slavery, we still might have fought a civil war, just over different major issues.
There is a great deal of blame to be put on those in the North, that complacently let slavery continue in the South, when those states were first brought into the Union. Eventually, they had to face the major problem it had become and take action. If they'd adopted good principles and enforced them on all the states, when they first joined the nation, it would have been a lot easier and not so divisive to the country. There's always the question, if those southern states would have joined, if they'd had to give up slavery, but we'll never know about that. And what would the Union have done if they'd remained as slave-holding territories and tried to refuse statehood??
Last edited by Steve McDonald; 08-28-2017 at 01:54 AM..
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.
