- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Slavery was not the only issue the South was fighting for
Posted on 8/20/17 at 10:58 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 8/20/17 at 10:58 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I guess the better question would be.....why are you not personally offended by Roman statues? Why haven't you asked for reparations?
1
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:02 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
The Confederacy became the biggest dictatorship compared to the Union when it came to laws and toeing the line and people still talk about State's rights.
You're asking people to make a judgement against their own family. For me personally, I know that my ancestors who fought in the War never owned slaves (like 90% of the men who fought). It's almost impossible for folks in this day and age to understand that men would go lay down their lives for something that had little to no direct impact on them.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:05 pm to INFIDEL
I don't see anyone trying to peddle the "states' rights" nonsense with those other ideas.
No, I don't. I can look back and say it was wrong and they should have known better. They certainly shouldn't have started a war against their own country over it.
quote:
But if youre going to explore history you have to interpret it by using era appropriate thinking and understanding.
No, I don't. I can look back and say it was wrong and they should have known better. They certainly shouldn't have started a war against their own country over it.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:07 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
At the Constitutional Convention, the southern states demanded that the Constitution include a clause stating that: “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”
That clause was a massive imposition on states’ rights.
It is important to remember that, before the Civil War, even the Bill of Rights could not be applied against the states: states could violate individual liberties without any federal oversight. Yet all states, by joining the Union, would now be part of the South’s vast slave-catching net.
At this point, it was safe to say that the South had absolutely no interest in preserving state autonomy, at least inasmuch as it cared to use federal law to protect its interest in billions of dollars of human “property.”
That clause was a massive imposition on states’ rights.
It is important to remember that, before the Civil War, even the Bill of Rights could not be applied against the states: states could violate individual liberties without any federal oversight. Yet all states, by joining the Union, would now be part of the South’s vast slave-catching net.
At this point, it was safe to say that the South had absolutely no interest in preserving state autonomy, at least inasmuch as it cared to use federal law to protect its interest in billions of dollars of human “property.”
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:08 pm to geauxbrown
quote:
why are you not personally offended by Roman statues?
I'm not offended by a rock, whether it is a Roman rock or a Confederate rock.
quote:
Why haven't you asked for reparations?
Reparations are a scam.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:09 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
Clearly, the South had little regard for the rights of other states. That disregard manifested next in the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Southern states recognized that, as America expanded westward into the Kentucky and Nebraska Territories, it would be impossible for them to maintain the pro-slavery majorities they held in Congress; eventually, all slaves could be freed by federal law.
In an attempt to stop emancipation, the South forced House Speaker Henry Clay into a compromise position on federal legislation. This trade made Missouri accept slavery and left open the possibility of slavery expanding west below the 36’30 parallel.
The South was livid. Its prized scheme of using federal primacy to bend northern states to its will was cracking.
The South’s supposed support for states’ rights did not extend to allowing Missouri residents to follow their own path on slavery. Southern politicians worried that they would lose the popular battle over slavery that federal law had decided in their favor and thus, eventually, lose control of the Senate.
In an attempt to stop emancipation, the South forced House Speaker Henry Clay into a compromise position on federal legislation. This trade made Missouri accept slavery and left open the possibility of slavery expanding west below the 36’30 parallel.
The South was livid. Its prized scheme of using federal primacy to bend northern states to its will was cracking.
The South’s supposed support for states’ rights did not extend to allowing Missouri residents to follow their own path on slavery. Southern politicians worried that they would lose the popular battle over slavery that federal law had decided in their favor and thus, eventually, lose control of the Senate.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:09 pm to geauxbrown
quote:
never owned slaves
Nah, they just fought for the rights of others to own them.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
You've successfully derailed another thread. I don't know why they keep falling for it.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:12 pm to DumbCollegeKid
quote:
You've successfully derailed another thread.
From the OP:
quote:
Slavery was not the only issue the South was fighting for by SMU Tiger Fan
One of the biggest ideals was "state's rights,"
Stay on topic.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:13 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
Moreover, when the southern states actually seceded, they made it clear that they were furious with the northern states for exercising their states’ rights at the expense of the South’s interests in owning people.
“[W]hen each state left the Union, its leaders made clear that they were seceding because they were for slavery and against states’ rights.
In its ‘Declaration of the Causes Which Impel the State of Texas to Secede From the Federal Union,’ for example, the secession convention of Texas listed the states that had offended the delegates . . . . Governments there had exercised states’ rights by passing laws that interfered with the federal government’s attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.”
“[W]hen each state left the Union, its leaders made clear that they were seceding because they were for slavery and against states’ rights.
In its ‘Declaration of the Causes Which Impel the State of Texas to Secede From the Federal Union,’ for example, the secession convention of Texas listed the states that had offended the delegates . . . . Governments there had exercised states’ rights by passing laws that interfered with the federal government’s attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.”
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:14 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Regionalism was the driving force. Slavery was the poison that had been brewing since the beginning of the union.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:17 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
n the 1840s and 1850s, the Supreme Court began addressing these impositions on states’ rights. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), the court struck down a Pennsylvania law preventing the transportation of any “negro or mullato” for the purposes of returning the person to slavery—because federal law superseded state law.
But, the court also held, importantly, that northern states did not need to use their own resources to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. The South was livid. Its prized scheme of using federal primacy to bend northern states to its will was cracking.
The South was all about Federal law imposing slavery and the rules and ideals upon the entire nation - Fugitive Slave act...and when State's passed laws objecting - you know State's rights - the South threw a hissy fit...they were all about Big Fed gov when it suited them...and then when they tried to block state's from following their own will and path - they seeceded and fought over political power and the impending doom of slavery...
And then 30 years later, they invoked a State's rights idea, stolen from Northern states trying not to impose Fed law on the slavery fugitive act the South protected like gold.
It's comical the flip-flop and appropriating an anti-slavery stance of state's rights to state's rights being a pro-slavery stance when pro-slavery was all about Federal protection and the Souths representation and power in Congress - to QUASH state's right in opposing slavery!
But, the court also held, importantly, that northern states did not need to use their own resources to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. The South was livid. Its prized scheme of using federal primacy to bend northern states to its will was cracking.
The South was all about Federal law imposing slavery and the rules and ideals upon the entire nation - Fugitive Slave act...and when State's passed laws objecting - you know State's rights - the South threw a hissy fit...they were all about Big Fed gov when it suited them...and then when they tried to block state's from following their own will and path - they seeceded and fought over political power and the impending doom of slavery...
And then 30 years later, they invoked a State's rights idea, stolen from Northern states trying not to impose Fed law on the slavery fugitive act the South protected like gold.
It's comical the flip-flop and appropriating an anti-slavery stance of state's rights to state's rights being a pro-slavery stance when pro-slavery was all about Federal protection and the Souths representation and power in Congress - to QUASH state's right in opposing slavery!
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:18 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
If you read period letters, which it appears you have not, you'll find that southerners complained about political subjugation by northerners. In the surveys we've made of period documents, it's the most common complaint, and the issue that Confederate soldiers point to. It's how they understood the war.
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 11:20 pm
Posted on 8/20/17 at 11:22 pm to Lima Whiskey
Let's not kid ourselves, though. Slavery was the hill that they picked to die on.
Posted on 8/21/17 at 1:34 am to DumbCollegeKid
Slavery was the trigger, and it has been a point of contention for decades, but that's not why soldiers on either side fought.
US Army soldiers talk about the concept of union, while southerners complain about the prospect of political slavery, domination at the hands of northerners.
US Army soldiers talk about the concept of union, while southerners complain about the prospect of political slavery, domination at the hands of northerners.
Posted on 8/21/17 at 1:42 am to SMU Tiger Fan
quote:
Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights.
It wasn't about States rights it was about a very small segment of several states and their economic interests. Presumably most black folks in the south would've preferred the abolition of slavery and, given the large number of southern unionists and deserters and those whites in the south who couldn't be forced or coerced into serving in either army the actual number of people who gave a shite about rich people being allowed to own other human beings or states rights was minuscule. It was all about the wealthy and powerful clinging desperately to their wealth and power.....and the bastards LOST because man has been marching inexorably toward progress since the dawn of time......
Posted on 8/21/17 at 6:46 am to Lima Whiskey
quote:
It's how they understood the war.
So, even back then, the people in this country couldn't help but buy what politicians were selling...
Posted on 8/21/17 at 6:51 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Lincoln wouldn't have announced the emancipation proclamation and slavery would've stayed intact.
Lincoln never wanted to free the slaves DESPITE the bullshite that's been told; he didn't want to deal with the political fallout. The freeing of the slaves was entirely bc of his wife; she forced his hand.
Posted on 8/21/17 at 7:13 am to Ingeniero
quote:
The civil war didn't become about slavery
every confederate state said they were seceding because of slavery
Posted on 8/21/17 at 7:20 am to sugar71
One issue that never seems to be addressed in these threads is the division between the North and the South in the REVOLUTIONARY war, The south was somewhat more sympathetic with England and that left a bad taste in Northerners' mouths. This created a distrust that was fueled by the South having a cotton trading partnership with Europe and England. The North, being less dependent on the trade, passed tariffs in 1828 to curtail this trade (Some Northern states had slavery at this time so, obviously, that wasn't the issue). The created even more animosity and led to more economic strain causing the South to become more entrenched in Slavery. The modern equivalent to this would be the State of New York and California voting to raise the base income tax rates of while males in TX, LA, MS, ALA, GA, and FL to pay for road and economic improvements in New York City.
People saying the North fought the South because of slavery while ignoring the other obvious issues that had been building for over half a century are doing nothing but showing their liberal brainwashed education.
The North and the South were never that united in the first place after the founding of the country. It wasn't like everyone was all "buddy buddy" and suddenly they wanna kill each other after the North mentions freeing slaves.
How was the North trying to invalidate the South's political representation?
For an obvious example, going WAY back, the debate about making blacks 3/5th of a citizen. This was done, in reality, to weaken the South's power because had the blacks been counted as citizens their votes would have went the direction of their owners. (Which, as an aside, shows that the constitution was "racists" as some people say).
The North pushing tariffs starting in 1828, which some southern states rejected only to have Andrew Jackson deem them traitors and threaten the use of force to uphold the tariffs. The tariffs were upheld and the fight for states rights gained steam.
Also, only 4.8% of southern whites owned one or more slaves. Is someone really going to try and argue that the other 95.2% fought and were willing to die for a right they did not enjoy? What issue really burned up the population? It was the North trying to invalidate the South's political representation.
The emancipation proclamation is proof Lincoln did not view slavery as an issue worth splitting up the union. How people miss this amazes me. It Was really an incentive for the rebelling states to rejoin the union by letting them keep their slaves if they rejoined. They did not even with that incentive. I wonder why?
In fact, Lincoln ran against expanded slavery into the territories, not abolishing it altogether.
Quote from Lincoln in his Letter to Horace Greeley:
If Lincoln had allowed the South to own the federal land in the seceded Confederacy, the actual fighting of the Civil War would not have started. At the end of the day, slavery would have ended without abolishment over time anyway. There were technological advancements that were right around the corner that would have helped the South's economy tremendously. My problem is that the North, knowing this, used Slavery to trump up a war that was really about control of power. There is a reason many blacks stayed in the South: The North didn't want them. Lincoln had it in his mind to deport the slaves. In fact, the Secretary of State of the Confederacy offered to completely abolish slavery in the South as long as the North would allow secession, the North (who still owned slaves btw) REFUSED the offer.
30-40 more years of enslaving 4 million people is ok with you?
600,000 americans killing themselves permanently while causing a rift in the country that, believe it or not, still exists today is better?
What's crazy is that many of the slaves returned to their "owners" after they were freed anyway. So there goes the 30-40 years right there.
---
Here's the magic bullet IMO: When the war started Lincoln and the powers that be in the North were willing to allow slavery if it meant preserving the union. His own words were quoted in this thread. If the South seceded in principle just over Slavery, why didn't the states take up the early offers and rejoin the Union?
People saying the North fought the South because of slavery while ignoring the other obvious issues that had been building for over half a century are doing nothing but showing their liberal brainwashed education.
The North and the South were never that united in the first place after the founding of the country. It wasn't like everyone was all "buddy buddy" and suddenly they wanna kill each other after the North mentions freeing slaves.
How was the North trying to invalidate the South's political representation?
For an obvious example, going WAY back, the debate about making blacks 3/5th of a citizen. This was done, in reality, to weaken the South's power because had the blacks been counted as citizens their votes would have went the direction of their owners. (Which, as an aside, shows that the constitution was "racists" as some people say).
The North pushing tariffs starting in 1828, which some southern states rejected only to have Andrew Jackson deem them traitors and threaten the use of force to uphold the tariffs. The tariffs were upheld and the fight for states rights gained steam.
Also, only 4.8% of southern whites owned one or more slaves. Is someone really going to try and argue that the other 95.2% fought and were willing to die for a right they did not enjoy? What issue really burned up the population? It was the North trying to invalidate the South's political representation.
The emancipation proclamation is proof Lincoln did not view slavery as an issue worth splitting up the union. How people miss this amazes me. It Was really an incentive for the rebelling states to rejoin the union by letting them keep their slaves if they rejoined. They did not even with that incentive. I wonder why?
In fact, Lincoln ran against expanded slavery into the territories, not abolishing it altogether.
Quote from Lincoln in his Letter to Horace Greeley:
quote:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also so that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”
If Lincoln had allowed the South to own the federal land in the seceded Confederacy, the actual fighting of the Civil War would not have started. At the end of the day, slavery would have ended without abolishment over time anyway. There were technological advancements that were right around the corner that would have helped the South's economy tremendously. My problem is that the North, knowing this, used Slavery to trump up a war that was really about control of power. There is a reason many blacks stayed in the South: The North didn't want them. Lincoln had it in his mind to deport the slaves. In fact, the Secretary of State of the Confederacy offered to completely abolish slavery in the South as long as the North would allow secession, the North (who still owned slaves btw) REFUSED the offer.
30-40 more years of enslaving 4 million people is ok with you?
600,000 americans killing themselves permanently while causing a rift in the country that, believe it or not, still exists today is better?
What's crazy is that many of the slaves returned to their "owners" after they were freed anyway. So there goes the 30-40 years right there.
---
Here's the magic bullet IMO: When the war started Lincoln and the powers that be in the North were willing to allow slavery if it meant preserving the union. His own words were quoted in this thread. If the South seceded in principle just over Slavery, why didn't the states take up the early offers and rejoin the Union?
This post was edited on 8/21/17 at 7:26 am
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News