- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: If the civil war was about slavery, why’d they keep slaves in the North?
Posted on 5/23/25 at 6:46 am to tigger1
Posted on 5/23/25 at 6:46 am to tigger1
Question: Which rights for the 90% who did not own slaves were being violated by the FedGov? Was speech, religion, search and seizure, freedom of movement, freedom to otherwise engage in commerce, buying real estate being violated?
I can see the landed gentry's point, but I'm not seeing the rest of the population....ostensibly.
I can see the landed gentry's point, but I'm not seeing the rest of the population....ostensibly.
0
Posted on 5/23/25 at 6:49 am to Drizzt
quote:
the typical black man in any part of the US had no real rights until the 1960s.
Black men had the right to vote a generation before women did. They served in congress (as Republicans) during Reconstruction, immediately following the Civil War. They had the right to own land and business. To legally marry. Pretty typical rights that the average white man had.
Granted, it was a segregated society, but nothing about the Civil Rights Act changed that-we still are largely segregated. American Blacks were on the path to having a thriving society until the 1960's, when their own government sold them out for welfare.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 7:23 am to SaintsTiger
The Civil War was about slavery for the South
The Civil War was about putting down a secession for the North
*Follow me for more objective facts
The Civil War was about putting down a secession for the North
*Follow me for more objective facts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 7:34 am to tigger1
quote:
Like I said you know nothing of the war,
Old Boomer,
Like I said you’re missing my point. But keep writing down everything you know about the civil war. I guess that makes you right.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 7:41 am to TigerBaitOohHaHa
quote:
Black men had the right to vote a generation before women did. They served in congress (as Republicans) during Reconstruction, immediately following the Civil War. They had the right to own land and business. To legally marry. Pretty typical rights that the average white man had.
So much propaganda here sold to you by PBS. Right to vote? Look up poll taxes and literacy tests used in both the North and South. Also blacks elected in Reconstruction were Union puppets meant to humiliate Southern government. No blacks were elected to Congress for 28 years after Reconstruction anywhere in the country. As for owning land and businesses, that was technically true but Plessy v Ferguson was the law of the land so even in the North your business was treated as “separate but equal.”
Again, the idea that the North were heroic good guys sacrificing themselves to give blacks all the rights they had is a fairy tale Yankees tell themselves to feel good.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 7:54 am to FutureMikeVIII
quote:
The Civil War was not about the north wanting to eliminate slavery. It was about the south wanting to tell the north to mind its own business.
Fixed it for you.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 8:06 am to 5WFSHR
quote:
The civil war was not the problem. The deep state is though.
The deep state assumed power post war. It has always existed.
Hamilton and others saw a vision of the US as a world power to rival the Monarchies of the old world.
The Articles of Confederation stood in their way
There was a fierce political battle between the Antis and the Federalists to write the Constitution.
Upon a narrow ratification of the Constitution, States SECEDED from the Articles to join the USA. But not everyone all at once. Rhode Island went nearly 3 years before ratifying. How could a State survive on its own?
Now with a structured federal government in place, the battle of mercantile North and their lust for money and power over all would face off against the Agrarian South who still believed in the individual above the State.
The first several Presidents were from the South which irritated the power brokers on the North. in 1794 Rufus king and Oliver Ellsworth approached John Taylor of Caroline in a private meeting room to discuss breaking up the union
Northerners once again brought up secession when the Louisiana purchase was made. Why? Because now the union would be filled with more farmers and Jeffersonian types of people and vote that way.
Northerners were also all about spending federal money on internal improvements (bridges, roads, canals, etc) John Calhoun warned the South about holding out on investing in internal improvements in the new territory because if the North did and the South opposed, the new States would side with the North out of gratitude.
The North was back at it again during the embargo coinciding with the war of 1812. Coming out of the Hartford convention they spoke of secession due to Madison preventing trading with Britain.
Shortly after the War, Henry Clay introduced his vision of "The American System" a system of protective tariffs, a national bank, and more internal improvements. Clay was a big follower of Hamilton.
When the North finally did gain control of DC, they sought to levy higher tariffs as a means to funnel more money up to the North for their own benefit. Hence the Tariff of Abominations and subsequent Nullification Crisis in 1832.
Finally other acts such as the Morrill tariff and other hostilities led to the final act of secession by the original 7 States.
Lincoln was nothing more than a Whig that saw an opportunity. He was a believer in Clay's system and sought to further perpetuate it. And it wasn't going to happen without the money coming from the South.
Slavery was mixed in the political fire, but not about freeing the slaves, nope.
More along the lines of the North only wanting to count them as 2/3s of a person.
Should States enter the US as a slave State or free State, this had nothing to do with wanting to have an expansive slave system, it was posturing of which side would have more states on their "side". By this time in history the lucrative business of slave trading (a Northern industry) was shut down, so it's not like the South was looking to ship in more slaves to fill these new States.
The North, once industrialized, no longer had a dependent need for slaves en masse. Did they just free all of the slaves? Nope. Most sold their slaves to Southern plantation owners, hence the saying "being sold down the river"
Finally "Black laws" and Jim Crow laws show that while the North didn't approve of slavery, they sure as frick did not like Blacks, nor wanted them anywhere near them. This alone should give any independent thinker some idea that there's no way a society that shunned Blacks would voluntarily send their children or themselves to die for the right of Black slaves to be free.
This post was edited on 5/23/25 at 8:11 am
Posted on 5/23/25 at 8:11 am to SaintsTiger
The war was not solely about Slavery. It was just the many layers. It started over States Rights. The majority of men who fought in the South did not even own a single slave. The EP was signed by Abe to boost moral for the Union. Also The South referred to it as the War of Northern Aggression so it was also about protecting their land.
So to just say that it was only slavery is not completely accurate.
So to just say that it was only slavery is not completely accurate.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 8:18 am to Roaad
quote:Slavery was already protected by the Constitution.
The Civil War was about slavery for the South
quote:But why? Would the North no longer exist without these States? Why couldn't they just let them be on their way?
The Civil War was about putting down a secession for the North
Posted on 5/23/25 at 8:21 am to rileytiger
quote:
The EP was signed by Abe to boost moral for the Union.
The Ep was used to shift the narrative from a war about money into a moral crusade. This would also keep European countries out since they just emancipated their slaves a decade before. The blueprint to free slaves was there to be used, but that wasn't the intent of the North.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 8:31 am to SaintsTiger
quote:
The Civil War was primarily about slavery, but the situation in the North was more complex than a simple divide. While the Northern states are often seen as "free" states, slavery persisted in some form in parts of the North, particularly in border states and areas with gradual emancipation laws. Here’s why:
Gradual Emancipation Laws: States like New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania passed laws in the late 18th and early 19th centuries that gradually freed enslaved people, often only after they reached a certain age or served additional years. For example, New York’s 1799 law freed children born to enslaved mothers after 1817, but only when they turned 28 (for men) or 25 (for women). This meant slavery lingered legally in some Northern states well into the 1840s.
Border States: States like Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky—Union states during the Civil War—permitted slavery. These border states had significant economic and social ties to the South, and slavery remained entrenched. For instance, Maryland had about 87,000 enslaved people in 1860. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (1863) only applied to Confederate territories, so slavery continued in these Union states until the 13th Amendment in 1865.
Economic and Social Factors: In the North, slavery was less central to the economy than in the South, but it still existed in industries like agriculture, shipping, and domestic service, especially in the early 19th century. Some Northerners held onto enslaved labor for economic convenience or social status, even as public sentiment turned against it.
Political Compromise: The North’s tolerance of slavery in border states was partly a political strategy to keep those states loyal to the Union. Lincoln prioritized preserving the Union over immediate abolition, avoiding actions that might push border states to join the Confederacy.
Moral and Cultural Hypocrisy: While many Northerners opposed slavery in principle, some were complicit in its economic benefits (e.g., through trade with the South or owning slaves themselves). Abolitionism grew stronger over time, but it wasn’t universally embraced in the North, where racism and economic self-interest often diluted anti-slavery sentiment.
In short, the North wasn’t uniformly "free" of slavery due to gradual laws, economic ties, and political calculations. The Civil War’s core issue was the South’s dependence on and defense of slavery as an institution, but the North’s complicity in slavery’s persistence reveals a messier reality. By 1860, about 10-15% of the North’s population lived in states where slavery was still legal, though the numbers were far smaller than in the South.
from grok
Posted on 5/23/25 at 8:33 am to Lynxrufus2012
quote:
Which is why Juneteenth is nonsense. December 6 is the real day of freedom.
Communication was slow back then. Juneteenth was when Texas finally heard of it, specifically Galveston, TX.
FWIW, Yankee generals operated captured Southern Plantations with slaves until the end of the war to supply Yankee textile mills for a profit
Posted on 5/23/25 at 8:35 am to Tigergreg
quote:
Fixed it for you.
quote:
The Civil War was not about the north wanting to eliminate slavery. It was about the south wanting to tell the north to mind its own business…regarding owning people as property
Posted on 5/23/25 at 9:16 am to Cuz413
quote:K, not an argument against my point
Slavery was already protected by the Constitution.
quote:many, many reasons.
But why?
Posted on 5/23/25 at 9:28 am to VOR
quote:
The northern states were overwhelmingly anti-slave.
What a load of bullshite. During the Civil War, there were about 500,000 slaves in northern states.
You are an idiot.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 9:29 am to Roaad
quote:
Slavery was already protected by the Constitution.
K, not an argument against my point
Are you saying the South went to war for slavery? Because saying "The Civil War was about slavery for the South" is incorrect.
quote:
But why?
many, many reasons
All these reasons and can't name 1, 2, 5, or 10?
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:46 am to Cuz413
quote:correct.
Are you saying the South went to war for slavery?
quote:no. It is a popular cope among Southerners to reason themselves out, as we now see slavery as evil.But at the time the overwhelming majority of the economies of the South were inextricable from slavery.
Because saying "The Civil War was about slavery for the South" is incorrect.
Were there other reasons? Absolutely.
But there is a reason why the seceding states did so in the order of reliance on slave labor (heavy slave states, slave states, lower slave/border states). And also, every state that issued a proclamation giving reasons, listed slavery as the reason. I can provide you a litany of source documents confirming this.
Now if you want to argue that not every confederate fighting in the war fought for slavery, that is obviously true. But wars aren't created by soldiers, but by politicians and aristocrats.
quote:how many do you need? What classification? Political, economic, social, strategic? The reasons are soooo many, and I am on my phone. I hate typing on this thing, and would feel more comfortable using my keyboard after work.
All these reasons and can't name 1, 2, 5, or 10?
I have to warn you, I have done this a few times on this board, and it will just end with you ignoring my posts in a huff.
I have degrees in history with a focus on the reconstruction-era US
2 fundamental aspects to get you started: Neither side were noble or good.
Both things can be true:
-The South fought to preserve slavery as an institution
-Lincoln was a tyrant
This post was edited on 5/23/25 at 10:48 am
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:50 am to VOR
quote:
Whatever. The northern states were overwhelmingly anti-slave.
Northern states were the slave traders. New York and Boston harbors were your two biggest slave ports.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:57 am to Roaad
Well said and agree. This was a long time coming. I believe both sides had severe issue fatigue in 1861 like we see in many things today. The Missouri Compromise, Fugitive Slave Act, John Brown, Uncle Tom's Cabin and the lack of new slave States all wove into a 20 year slow burning fuse.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 11:00 am to goatmilker
We used to teach Kansas/John Brown/et al aa the dress rehearsal for the Civil War.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News