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.
Lincoln could outlaw slavery in the confederate states, but couldn't do it in states still in the Union, because they were protected by the constitution.
It did protect the practice, thats why they needed an amendment to ban it in states that were still a part of the Union, or had rejoined, as Tennessee had.
The confederacy, as in the link I posted above (if you read it in its entirety), clearly states that most of the people in the south had no slaves, and didn't fight for slavery. The population was against it, and it was doomed before the war started.
The war was more about states rights, than slavery. Slavery was just the match that lite the gasoline that had been sitting there since 1787.
Had the South won and the Union captured land rejoined the Confederacy...the people in those areas would be subject to Confederate laws not Union laws. They didn't need to add a provision in their own constitution to protect them from the laws of a foreign nation. That notion is complete idiocy.
I'm talking about the provision in the CONFEDERATE constitution that codified ownership of slaves as a right. Which makes its clear that your original assertion that the Confederacy actually planned to free slaves after the war is just plain out wrong.
The confederacy, as in the link I posted above (if you read it in its entirety), clearly states that most of the people in the south had no slaves, and didn't fight for slavery. The population was against it, and it was doomed before the war started.
Sure. They hated it so much, they specifically made sure it was protected in their constitution. It was such an unpopular thing, that their VP called it "the cornerstone" of their government.
Show us some Confederation government documents that describe this grand scheme to abolish slavery. Not letters, not post-war musings, not the 1865 Hail Mary attemot to curry favour with Europe. Just some concrete plans that the Confederate Gvt. officially wanted to abolish slavery.
I'm talking about the provision in the CONFEDERATE constitution that codified ownership of slaves as a right. Which makes its clear that your original assertion that the Confederacy actually planned to free slaves after the war is just plain out wrong.
That is actually the point, you see, one of the Confederacy's paramount cornerstones was Anti-Federalism, more power to the states. This is how the South saw it on different levels, slavery is a state issue, thus in the Confederacy the states, and ONLY the states can deal with it. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me, because a nation that has a structure like that, is much better than what we have ended up with (this monster of a federal government) today.
Besides, if the south would have won the Boll Weevil still comes around and leaves many plantation owners losing alot of money from destroyed cotton crops and not able to maintain the slaves, so yeah.
So a nation that refuses to protect human rights is a better nation? Maybe from the perspective of the slave master..certainly not from that of the enslaved.
So a nation that refuses to protect human rights is a better nation? Maybe from the perspective of the slave master..certainly not from that of the enslaved.
The Union still had slaves until after the end of the war (border states). Furthermore, the Union violated rights as well...starving POW's, arresting critics of Lincoln, raping, looting, pillaging, burning, etc.
So what you're saying is that in desperation when it was clear that they were going to lose the war..they promised to free slaves for British support.
What I'm saying is that when it REALLY MATTERED in 1861 when they were forming their government, they decided to codify slave ownership as a constitutionally protected right.
Status:
"Week trip to Flagstaff"
(set 14 days ago)
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,377 posts, read 4,994,236 times
Reputation: 2463
Quote:
Originally Posted by GALiberal
So a nation that refuses to protect human rights is a better nation? Maybe from the perspective of the slave master..certainly not from that of the enslaved.
Think with an 1861 mindset, leave your 2010 morals at the door, would that type of thinking even be considered abnormal at the time of the war?
I'm not justifying slavery in any way, but you have to judge these things on the context of the times.
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.
