re: Slavery was not the only issue the South was fighting for

20 pages of idiots from both sides going at each other over low hanging fruit instead of debating any real issues.

It was about a state's right to allow ownership of slaves. Do you think a state should have that right?

quote:

---

"States' rights" stop at owning other people.

---

I think it also matters "what do you consider a state's right"

A state's right to collect taxes.

A states's right to openly discriminate against any group for any reason.

A state's right to make political truces or trade agreements with other countries that may have ill-will towards the US as a whole.

All I am trying to say is that if a state has so much power as to defy central government , why have a central government in the first place. What do certain states "specifically" want to override the federal government for.

Sometimes, state's rights comes off as dog-whistle politics. That may not be the intent, but it is tough to discern with no substance.

A few points:

1. There was no income tax pre-civil war
2. Tariffs were used to pay for federal spending prior to income taxes

Because the north feared the south would ally with France and Britain, they passed a tariff against the south on agricultural trades that started devastating the south's economy to pay for the north's bills.

The modern equivalent would be the Feds writing regulations requiring white men to pay a BASE income tax rate of 50% to pay for entitlements used in other states while other races and genders didn't pay any income tax.

First of all, NO I don't think that a state should have a right to pass laws that discriminate against any race. That, though, is a constitutional issue.

Slavery is wrong, and was always wrong. The fact is, though, the north did not truly care about the morality of slavery (at least at first). It was more concerned with political and economic power over the south. The northern states used the issue slavery as a way to gain control over the south through the use of the federal government. The south realized that and fought back.

The issue is complicated, and ultimately the end result of the Civil War abolishing slavery was the right result. But, you cannot demonize those who fought for the south as simply a bunch of racists. Don't forget, there were MANY blacks who fought for the South and some blacks who even owned slaves.

quote:

---

Here is Mississippi's Articles of Seccession:
quote:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, t

---

Not surprising considering 49% of Missisppi Households owned slaves in 1860. Loved their precious slaves.


How can any Neo Confederate read these Articles & turn around with a straight face & claim 'it really wasn't about slavery'?


Sounds like Trumpkins who translate what he really meant to say.

quote:

---

What are you talking about fugitive slave laws were totally consistent with state's rights

---

Just because your property has crossed a state line does not mean it ceases to be your property

quote:

---

Just because your property has crossed a state line does not mean it ceases to be your property

---

Buy some weed in Colorado, cross the border to Nebraska. Let me how well this holds up.

You only bolded the part that fits your agenda.

I think the primary reason for the secession was slavery and the North's roadblocks to profits from slave farmed exports.

The primary reason for the Northern invasion was not to free the slaves, but to crush the secession.

quote:

---

Not surprising considering 49% of Missisppi Households owned slaves in 1860. Loved their precious slaves.

---

That is a misapplication of statistics. At its height, according to the census, there were slightly less than 31k slave owners in Mississippi. The total free population of the State was a little over 351k.

Furthermore, you can whine about slaves all you want, but it was really about money (could have just as easily have been about tractors were it in today's era). Most plantations has more capital in the slaves than they did in anything else, and that capital was being unduly burdened by a Northern government which received the majority of outlays while the South maintained nearly 2/3rd of the nation's wealth.