posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 03:11 AM
Okay now. I come to this thread 2 years after it's fade, but I've recently been pursuing extensive research into the subject and wanted to rant my
take, so I searched this thread. I apologize if any of these points were already touched upon, and I don't have exact dates, but here goes:
I want to start by saying that I agree with slavery by no means. Regardless of the motivation behind it's banishment, it was definitely a good
While slavery was a huge issue leading up to the civil war, it was not a matter of whether slavery was moral or legal, instead it was about slaves
being recognized as property when traveling from one state to another. Personal property is recognized and protected federally in the constitution.
However, shortly before the war, recognition of slaves as property was made to be decided by the individual states. This angered the many southern
folks of wealth who were able to travel between states because they were plantation owners and in turn slave owners, who probably preferred to bring
along slaves for things like carrying their luggage and other manual labor that they were too lazy and unaccustomed to performing for themselves,
which many were men of political power within the southern states, and thus I believe this was the main issue leading up to secession: state vs.
federal power. As the constitution was not being upheld federally, I assume they said to hell with it and seceded.
Tariffs on international trade were a major source of federal income in the 19th century. Many believe this was a major issue for the southern states
leading to secession, as they provided 90% of the nation's cotton, which was a huge cash crop at the time. Northern states wanted higher
tariffs, as they provided more industry than exports, and the Morrill Tariff was introduced as a bill in 1859. However, it was constantly blocked due
to southern state holding dominance in congress. The Morrill Tariff was passed and enacted in 1861, after the 13 southern states had seceded
and and thus forfeited their seats, giving inevitable dominance to the northern states. So while it was not an initial issue, it was a matter that
spurred things along.
Ft. Sumter was among five seaside Union-held forts along the coasts of Confederate states in 1861, along with Ft Monroe on Chesapeake Bay in Hampton,
VA, and Forts Pickens, Jefferson, and the yet-incomplete Fort Taylor, all three along the Gulf-coast of Florida. It is important to keep the Morrill
Tariff in mind, as 4 of these forts, including Ft Sumter, were on important harbors of Confederate states. South Carolina was determined to uproot the
Unions hold on Sumter, as it sits smack in the middle of Charleston Harbor. Two forts both north and south of Ft Sumter on the mainland coast were
already state-held. SC sent multiple demands for the Union to vacate the fort, but I believe Lincoln had plans to hold it to help enforce Union rule
on trade. SC took the first initiative, though, blockading the waterways surrounding the island fortress and blocking supplies. This still did not
deter the Union presence, and they eventually opened cannon fire upon Sumter.
Get this, there were NO casualties besides 1 horse. I believe it was only intended to scare the Union presence into vacating the fort.
They had it completely surrounded by two forts and a number of ships. Can you really believe they wouldn't have inflicted casualties if that was what
they were intending??? Regardless, Lincoln got his panties in a wad and the Union amassing army moved to attempt to take the Confederate capital by
force, and the first official human bloodshed of the Civil War was not until Bull Run. So did the Confederacy start the war??? You decide...
As for the Emancipation Proclamation, it's overrated, along with Lincoln and his morals. While it did put a limited ban on slavery, there were still
Union states allowed slaves. It was merely one of many moves by Lincoln to weaken the Confederacy economically. Mary, his wife and First Lady,
was the daughter of a wealthy banker and slave owner! There are also documents of Lincoln trying to have freed slaves deported to British
colonies in latin america after the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation. Through the war, which was a huge over-reaction and lacked but a speck
of diplomacy, Lincoln expanded federal government to the point that the founding fathers probably turned a 540 in their graves. He created the DOA in
1862 and "revolutionized"(industrialized) agriculture, I assume in light of the manual working slaves being freed, instead of allowing the work to
become paid jobs. I mean, there's pros and cons to the guy, but if I haven't made it clear, I think he's largely overrated.