The truth about slavery and the civil war.

Slavery was the main reason the south seceded

You've clearly never read their deceleration of secessions. They state loud and clear that they seceded because of slavery.. go ahead and read them.

Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.

Mississippi

]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.

South Carolina

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

Texas

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time

There. It is more than clear they all seceded because of slavery. The cotton gin was just commercialized and the slave trade was BOOMING. A huge amount of money to be made.....

The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of the Southern economy.[12] While it took a single slave about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin, a team of two or three slaves could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day.[13] The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850.[14] By 1860, the Southern states were providing two-thirds of the world’s supply of cotton, and up to 80% of the crucial British market.[15] The cotton gin thus “transformed cotton as a crop and the American South into the globe's first agricultural powerhouse, and – according to many historians – was the start of the Industrial Revolution".

Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave

en.wikipedia.org...

The Slave Power movement also came into play BECAUSE the south was getting so powerful due to the cotton gin and slavery....

The Slave Power (often called the "Slaveocracy") was a term used in the United States ca. 1840-1865 to denounce the political power of the slaveholding class in the South. The argument was that this small group of rich men had seized political control of their own states and was trying to take over the national government in illegitimate fashion to use it to expand and protect slavery.

The main issue expressed by the phrase was distrust of the power of slave-owning oligarchs. Such distrust was shared by many who were not abolitionists, and who were motivated more by a perceived threat to whites than by concern over the treatment of slaves. Those who differed on many other issues (such as hating blacks or liking them, denouncing slavery as a sin or promising to guarantee its protection in the Deep South) could unite to attack the "slaveocracy."[1] The "Free Soil" element emphasized that rich slave owners would move into new territory, use their cash to buy up all the good lands, then use their slaves to work the lands, leaving little opportunity room for free farmers. By 1854 the Free Soil Party had largely merged into the new Republican party

And yes Lincoln said racist things but his LAST speech was about giving black people equality and the right to vote.

Lincoln expressed his support for black suffrage. This statement incensed John Wilkes Booth, a member of the audience, who vowed, "That is the last speech he will make." A white supremacist and Confederate activist, Booth made good on his threat three days later.

"Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave-state of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man." - Lincoln

showcase.netins.net...

The states right argument is BULL#... what state rights to own African slaves?

reply to post by camaro68ss


In a nutshell, the Cvil War was over states rights to govern themselves. Back then each state was viewed as it's own independant territory, much like a miniatre country, even having their own currencies. The war was never about slavery in and of itself. The South requested 15-20 years from Lincoln to rearrange their economy to support freeing slaves, Lincoln pitched a fit and basically said "do it and do it now", acting the part of a dictator.

Now Robert E. Lee was an honorable man, he knew Lincoln and was once offered command of the Union army. There was clearly a schism between him and Lincoln that caused him to turn for the South. Obviously there is more to the story than what is told in history books today, but that is how it is, the victory gets to write history while the losers are villified.

South had cotton they sold to britian at a better price than the northern states would. Cotton mills all over new england and they are still there today. Not cotton mills anymore but apartments. So north taxed south to force them to not export cotton. Made the cotton about the same price as if when they sold it to the north. South refused the tax and sent it anyway. Port of charleston blockade by the north and civil war broke out. Sorry for the broken sentences.

Free the slaves was a rally point to get the non cotton mill owners to back their actions. The same way that saddam had WMD did for the iraq war

reply to post by ShotGunRum

Slavery was the main reason the south seceded

Can you really not see the deeper aspects at play? That's like saying tea choice is the main reason the Americans revolted.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


You guessed wrong.

His feeling were hardly universal in the south and you know that. The motivations for that war are a matter of perspective. Was it about slavery? No, nor was it really about state's rights. Almost every major developed country has experienced some major schism in it's lifetime. It's par for the course, the reasoning was really little more than justification. Blood was going to spilled, it was two different cultures. It is still largely that way today though the rift has been lessened with time.

Some accuse me of seeing some "romantic" version of history. How are you above that? Looking for nobility in what the south was doing to an entire race of people. There was nothing noble about it. It was disgusting but, when you are in a pigsty there is plenty of mud to throw around. The north was no better. So really, what you guys are doing is trying to find a victim when both sides were clearly wrong. No motivation can make what happened any better or worse, it happened, it's over and nothing you say about that period of time is going to change the one you are living in now.

So a thread about how minorities are destroying white values and now a thread victimizing the confederacy...

all in a span of 24 hours..


whats next? Jim Crow laws were secretly good?

Maybe the thread should veer back to the topic at hand?

Jefferson Davis, who was to become the President of the Confederate States, held out all hope for secession to the end. Eventually, he saw that the Northern States and the Federal Government were not going to recognize States' right to secede. In his last speech as a Senator of the United States he said the following:

"It is known to senators who have served with me here, that I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union...If i had thought that Mississippi was action without sufficient provocation...I should still, under my theory of government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her actions."

Here you would think, if you are about to potentially put your state at risk for everything, you would lay it all out on the line and explain why you are leaving the Union. In which, Senator Davis did. He wanted to test that right and if need be, in court. Sadly, it came to war before the legality of it could be tested. It should be noted that the whole chamber applauded his candor, his bravery and his conviction that he was a citizen of the state of Mississippi first, the Union second.

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


The civil war happened because the rich white southerners did not want to give up their profits off slavery. It was all about money and power. Hence the slave power movement...

The Slave Power (often called the "Slaveocracy") was a term used in the United States ca. 1840-1865 to denounce the political power of the slaveholding class in the South. The argument was that this small group of rich men had seized political control of their own states and was trying to take over the national government in illegitimate fashion to use it to expand and protect slavery.

The main issue expressed by the phrase was distrust of the power of slave-owning oligarchs. Such distrust was shared by many who were not abolitionists, and who were motivated more by a perceived threat to whites than by concern over the treatment of slaves.

en.wikipedia.org...

You can argue states rights all you want, but they were fighting for the states rights to own slaves, which is just terrible.

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
You can argue states rights all you want, but they were fighting for the states rights to own slaves, which is just terrible.

It was terrible but you just confirmed the OPs stance with what you said above. While the intentions of States' Rights were key the growing division in the United States, it was that the Federal Government was overstepping its authority and responsibility.

Equally terrible was the northern representatives during the debate of the new Constitution to compromise on Article I, Section 2 (the 3/5th Clause). A stand right there might have created only a United States of 6 or 7 states, but it would have led a whole new path of the new United States of America.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

It was terrible but you just confirmed the OPs stance with what you said above.

No I didn't. His argument was slavery had little to do with the civil war, when the truth it is had everything to do with it. They seceded BECAUSE they were paranoid Lincoln was trying to end their cash cow, which was slavery.

Why would anyone want to sympathize with the confederacy? Their actions started a war because they wanted to keep Africans as property.

reply to post by antonia


I stand corrected then. My apologies. I never meant that you romanticized history
I don't romanticize the war either, any serious study shows it was among the most brutal and destructive wars ever fought anywhere. That men could fight as they did at the bloody angle, standing atop wounded and dead friend and foe, grappling hand to hand in a rainstorm for almost 24 hours shows the determination and ferocity possessed of both sides.

Cleburne owned no slaves, he was a lawyer and a pharmacist. He has nothing noble about him simply because he fought for the Confederacy? Slavery wasn't something "the South" was doing to a race of people, it was what a wealthy elite were doing to a race of people. Those who fought to defend their homes deserve all the honor we can bestow them. Real men would do nothing less when invading armies burn your homes and pillage your farms.

Black people were victims but so were the people of South who never owned slaves as their states were ruined by passing Northern armies something Northerners never even so much as got a taste of.

I agree It is an oversimplification to say it was fought for slavery or states rights, As you say they were different cultures who had grown far apart. The south was agricultural while the North was industrial and each has their own desires when it came to national policies.

I try to take a balanced view of the war but the sacrifices made deserve our remembrance regardless of whether it changes anything about today or not and that applies to both sides.

What really gets my goat (this is not directed at you Antonia) is how people today can pass moral judgement on those of the past and reduce the entire conflict to the issue of slavery. They are completely missing the boat and buying in to the modern revisionist historical model.

reply to post by ShotGunRum


Not entirely the picture but it is a big part of the puzzle. The deciding factor for states to secede was because the Federal Government wanted to impose its will upon the sovereignty of States. While slavery was the issue that caused the divide, it still boils down to State Rights. It would be no different today if Gay Marriage States wanted to secede because of a Federal mandate dictating how a State should govern. The issues are clearly different but the premise is the same. I never said slavery wasn't part of the equation, as it was; but it was the Federal Government encroachment upon the States that ultimately led to the division.

STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEGAL SLAVERY.

IF A STATE IS VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD INTERVENE.


I think states should have way more power than they do now, but slavery was a MAJOR issue in the civil war. And regardless of what anyone wants to say, the south was wayyyyy more in the wrong in that conflict.

It is true that slavery was practiced in the North. But look at the outcome. Slavery was abolished in all states. That is the victory of the Civil War. Had the North not fought to preserve the union, there would have been slavery in the south for many years after.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

The deciding factor for states to secede was because the Federal Government wanted to impose its will upon the sovereignty of States

Nope. The southern states seceded out of paranoia. No anti-slavery law was even being imposed on them.

The south sure had no problem accepting federal laws like the Fugitive Slave Act.

The demand from the South for more effective Federal legislation was voiced in the second fugitive slave law, drafted by Senator James Murray Mason of Virginia, grandson of George Mason, and enacted on September 18, 1850, as a part of the Compromise of 1850. Special commissioners were to have concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. circuit and district courts and the inferior courts of territories in enforcing the law; fugitives could not testify in their own behalf; no trial by jury was provided.

Penalties were imposed upon marshals who refused to enforce the law or from whom a fugitive should escape, and upon individuals who aided black people to escape; the marshal might raise a posse comitatus; a fee of $10 ($279 as of 2012)

The personal liberty laws forbade justices and judges to take cognizance of claims, extended the Habeas corpus act and the privilege of jury trial to fugitives, and punished false testimony severely. In 1854, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin went so far as to declare the Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional.[15]

These state laws were one of the grievances that South Carolina would later use to justify its secession from the Union. Attempts to carry into effect the law of 1850 aroused much bitterness.

en.wikipedia.org...

They even cried when the states made laws to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The south were hypocrites who cared about nothing but money, power, and the ablity to own slaves.

I don't know why people try to argue the states rights issue. Their own declarations of secession flat out say "WE WANNA OWN NEGROES AND CONTINUE WHITE SUPREMACY".

Like PatrickGarrow17 said, no state has the right to own another human being.

If the south didn't want to follow an amendment to the constitution declaring slavery was illegal then they were traitors.

Romanticizing the confederacy is just creepy as you can flat out see what they stood for...

This Thread will quickly spiral out of control, because people can't see past slavery. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back. Yet it was not the major part of the war, there are many, many reasons that it wasn't the the main issue for it in the first place.

This is my problem with people who pretend that the civil war was all about slavery, in a nut shell.

Why did northern slaves remain slaves until after the proclamation?

Why was Apartheidism allowed to flourish after the end of the war under northern occupation?

The truth is simple, Lincoln knew that the north couldn't start a war, with out galvanizing the middle and lower classes. Slavery was the hot button issue of the day, and he pressed it. It had nothing to do with the reason, for the war, the south was going to succeed and start independent trade, bypassing federal taxes.

States rights where at the very heart of the issue, it was a bad issue I'll give you that, but either way slavery was on the outs, the south knew that. either way, slavery was have gone away along the same timeline. all the war did, was change the name, while increasing federal power.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEGAL SLAVERY.

IF A STATE IS VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD INTERVENE.

To an extent, I agree, but the problem stemmed from when the debate of the Constitution first took place sadly. Some Founders abhorred the notion of slavery, such as John Adams, but fell to the 3/5th Compromise. It is my belief that if that compromise never took place, the issue of slavery would have been squashed in the states that believed in the tenets of the Declaration of Independence. That said, there would have either been another war as soon as the Constitution was ratified or England would have taken advantage of lack of unity of the colonies and France would have backed out.

I do not think though it was a Federal issue. What is different, on principle, from modern day, when the Federal Government imposes its will and dictate on States that are crafting their own laws, ie, medical marijuana, seat-belt laws, helmet laws, speed limits, drinking age, education, etc. etc.

While the severity of the scope is obviously drastic, those are all a part of when the States were beat down to Federal rule that became a National rule. In a nut shell, the Federal Government began its "we know better" path at the point of the Civil War. While the premise and nobility of the endeavor are notable, it signaled the beginning of the end for State sovereignty.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Back then each state was viewed as it's own independant territory, much like a miniatre country, even having their own currencies.

You hit the nail on the head...sort of.

The states were, and will always be, the lawful countries of the Union.

People have no idea how the law was twisted during the Civil War. We had a republic and were handed an empire.

The Federal Government at that time, created more slaves than they freed.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

BODY POLITIC, government, corporations. When applied to the government this phrase signifies the state.

2. As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take collectively the name, of people, or nation; and individually they are citizens, when considered in relation to their political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of the state.

3. When it refers to corporations, the term body politic means that the members of such corporations shall be considered as an artificial person.

STATE, government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson's Lect. 120; Dane's Appx. §50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. §361.

In a more limited sense, the word `state' expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. State also means the section of territory occupied by a state, as the state of Pennsylvania.

NATIONS. Nations or states are independent bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.

2. But every combination of men who govern themselves, independently of all others, will not be considered a nation; a body of pirates, for example, who govern themselves, are not a nation. To constitute a nation another ingredient is required. The body thus formed must respect other nations in general, and each of their members in particular. Such a society has her affairs and her interests; she deliberates and takes resolutions in common; thus becoming a moral person who possesses an understanding and will peculiar to herself, and is susceptible of obligations and rights. Vattel, Prelim. §1, 2; 5 Pet. S. C. R. 52.

COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEGAL SLAVERY.

IF A STATE IS VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD INTERVENE.

Actually, that is not correct and goes beyond the scope and function of the federal government.

The federal constitution is an international law treatise. Congress was only supposed to act as a referee between the states (the lawful nations of the Union) in a similar way the United Nations does for Europe.

Congress was not supposed to meddle in the domestic affairs of the several nations.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


It was also the time period in which the Constitution was hit hard. True representation in the House of Representatives was "fixed" and rather than having a representative per 30,000 citizens. It was a complete consolidation of power by the Federal Government.

-- Null the tenets of the Declaration of Independence
-- Fix the House of Representatives to a set number
-- Destroy all those who oppose.

While slavery was a cause worth fighting to rid, it was a flex of muscle against the States. Stay in line or you feel the brunt of the Union.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

It was also the time period in which the Constitution was hit hard. True representation in the House of Representatives was "fixed" and rather than having a representative per 30,000 citizens. It was a complete consolidation of power by the Federal Government.

Also, the southern state senators walked out on Congress, leaving the representation for those states lacking. Without those senators Congress did not have a lawful basis to continue deliberating.

For that reason, Abraham Lincoln and the Congress at that time were unlawfully working outside of the federal constitution. The formation of the Union army by Lincoln, to be used against the southern states, sealed Lincoln's role as a military dictator.

Because of all of this, and including the reconstruction acts and legislation passed directly after the war, we have two separate governments at work in the Union.

There is the de facto empire that we are born into, and there is the de jure republic that has been subverted.

But many are working hard to fix the problems caused by the civil war.

While slavery was a cause worth fighting to rid, it was a flex of muscle against the States. Stay in line or you feel the brunt of the Union.

If it was not for slavery, the United States would be a very different place today.
You should look into a book called "The Red Amendment."