|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > Aethelred's History Chamber > The South and the reasons for the Civil War -- it's not slavery |
| Moderated by: Aethelred |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm "I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union." "During the entire life of the Republic the respective rights and powers of the States and general government had furnished a question for endless controversy. In process of time this controversy assumed a somewhat sectional phase. The dominating thought of the North and of the South may be summarized in a few sentences. The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States... The North, on the other hand, maintained with the utmost confidence in the correctness of her position that the Union formed under the Constitution was intended to be perpetual; that sovereignty was a unit and could not be divided; that whether or not there was any express power granted in the Constitution for invading a State, the right of self-preservation was inherent in all governments; that the life of the Union was essential to the life of liberty; or, in the words of Webster, "liberty and union are one and inseparable." I have long maintained that UNLIKE what is commonly taught in elementary schools, Slavery was NOT at the foundations of the Civil War, but was rather a means to an end -- the method by which the North successfully raised the ire and emotions of it's population, not unlike how George Bush first created and then played upon the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of the entire US population during his creation of the reasons for fighting Iraq during his term in office, instead of after Afghanistant was complete. It's interesting that the real reasons for the Civil War are not very different from many of the issues being discussed in the US today over the Patriot Act, the wiretapping, to name a few issues. Without change away from the direction the government of the last 8 years has taken it's citizenry, could we be somewhere in the range of perhaps 1840-1850 again? So --- Does the claim of the right to self-governance by States transcend and have a higher priority than the existence of the national government? If you agree with this, then isn't it also logically implied that your opinion must also be that the Union was incorrect to fight and win the Civil War, and that the Confederacy had the right of it.
 Armed with the power of Thy name nothing can ever hurt me, and with Thy love in my heart all the world's afflictions can in no wise alarm me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
librtyhead Original500© Member 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The problem with states today is that they rely on government to subsidize much of the inner structure of state programs. Once instituted it is hard to rely on state funding only to run these programs, federal highway funding is an example. Give me a State that could be self sufficient as an example, the Federal Government cuts off funding and the State is left to fend for themselves. That is what the term "United States" comes from, some States will have an over abundance of product and others will be hard hit by floods and what not. If the Federal Gov. did not step in it would be a disaster. But I do agree that States need to get off their duffs and support themselves and stop relying on the big evil Fed to bail them out. There is much to be said on regional support but that would be a different thread. The Civil war was not about slavery it was about the right of States to secede from the union, that is why the war was fought not because of slavery. But it was a good reason to gain footage. In the north slaves were free and raw materials were lagging behind for the manufacturing process to the north, if the slaves were shipped in from Russia it would have been the same. The use of the Chinese to build the transcontinental railroad could have been percieved as slavery also, they were not represented in any voting process but were shipped in to perform a function. Cheap labor...........sound familiar? Now we outsource. But I'm rambling now. Does the end justify the means?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I pointed out to a forumite the other night, the Fed funding things is a matter of balance. Would the citizens of New York actually GIVE money to some other part of the country to build roads there? Should Lousiana and Alabama and Wyoming and Montana have dirt roads going everywhere, merely because the taxable income of the residents of those states is NOT large enough to actually pay for the distances they need to cover with roads? Should those same states (and others) have much older school buildings, falling down and decrepit, merely because Big Industry has chosen to locate up north in and near the big cities, thus making the industrial North much richer and more able to pay for better schools, teachers, and roads? Obviously, the Fed has now gone far too far in what they pay for--- But the reality is that Americans are equals! This is not feudal Europe and we all deserve good roads and schools, Westport Connecticut schools shouldn't HAVE millions and millions of dollars given to five or six schools merely because all the millions of dollars per-year Fortune 100 CEOs live there. While schools in the Southwest and Midwest must struggle with the very limited tax money that local poor farmers can give to educate all the children in the whole state. Why should a child who happens to be born in New Mexico (legal resident, just to take that issue OUT of this thread right off the bat) --- why should that child be forced to have an education based on merely $2500 a year expenditure per child merely because the generations of people from his area DID NOT make $250,000 a year each? and thusly, there wasn't anywhere nearly the tax base that there is in Westport Connecticut? (where the average expenditure per child is more like $21,000 a year) That's the inequity that the Fed is SUPPOSED to solve. but they do go too far. Last edited on 03:56 am by sirlamre Armed with the power of Thy name nothing can ever hurt me, and with Thy love in my heart all the world's afflictions can in no wise alarm me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator  Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a cost to freedom and independence. If you start going for things like "should the schools in State X do worse because ..." or "should State X have worse roads than State Y ..." then you have to understand that the cost to this is giving up the right to claim freedom and independence because now you are being socialistic and redistributing wealth. The flip side being it's not fair that innovators and risk takers from State X who are successful have to pay for complacent and lazy dopes from somewhere else.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
foxglovepress Forum-Blogger© Original500© Member  NON-PC!!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's a double edged sword. I agree with Frank that the wealthy, who have managed to do it right so to speak, should not have to pay for everyone else! Then again, I think it should be a matter of population as well. Many states have far more people traveling on their roads than say Wyoming for instance. They would need more spent on their roads! Where I feel it would be nice to split equal, if you will, is with medical! I do feel that all people in the country (who are legal) should have the right to good medical treatment across the board. We damn well pay enough taxes to accomplish that! Personally, I'm not so sure our government should be in the business of teaching our children anything. We should have private schools.
Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote:The flip side being it's not fair that innovators and risk takers from State X who are successful have to pay for complacent and lazy dopes from somewhere else. It's interesting how quickly people from less wealthy states become "complacent and lazy dopes from somewhere else." when income is discussed. I think I just got included in the "complacent and lazy dopes from somewhere else." group because I don't make $125,000 a year as an IT consultant in Western NC. Of course, the fact that NO ONE in WNC would PAY that to a consultant doesn't have any bearing on that whatsoever. It's my fault that I'm only allowed to make what the economy will support--- You know, there just ARE not any corporate headquarters paying $250,000 a year in Gallup New Mexico. Plenty of farmers though -- and they all sure are lazy. Why, they only work about 15 hours a day seven days a week!!! Of course, the fact that they are NOT taking big risks and innovating and launching venture capitalist concepts and succeeding in putting multimillions of dollars into theme parks in the middle of the New Mexico desert is THEIR FAULT, and we should never forget that!!!!! Last edited on 04:22 am by sirlamre Armed with the power of Thy name nothing can ever hurt me, and with Thy love in my heart all the world's afflictions can in no wise alarm me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
foxglovepress Forum-Blogger© Original500© Member NON-PC!!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sirlamre wrote: So --- GOOD QUESTION! I really want to think about this before I answer it. Right off the top my answer would be, yeah! As long as each state does what I think is right!! But when you look at the over all picture, I'm not as sure. Maybe it's more important to maintain a Federal government that's worth entrusting our well being to......... 
Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
foxglovepress Forum-Blogger© Original500© Member NON-PC!!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sirlamre........why do I feel you've introduced two different ideas in this same thread? What am I not seeing? I feel like I've answered two totally different questions here. 
Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sirlamre wrote: From: This is utter balderdash. The Southern states knew perfectly well that Lincoln ascending to the presidency was a bad omen for the institution of slavery. The reason the South seceded in the first place was they knew they weren't going to have the power to stop the abolitionist forces. That's the state right they were fighting for in the first place. (It makes no difference if most Southerners were slave holders or not. It was a way of life and of looking at blacks that the South wasn't going to give up.) It's absolutely true that the North's interest was in preserving the Union, but the South's secession was all about slavery. If it was true, as this author claims, that the South could've saved slavery by laying down their arms, they wouldn't have fought in the first place.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sirlamre Pioneer100© Member Official Forum Troublemaker
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote: sirlamre wrote:From: Read about the tariffing changes the North was putting into place- The clasic example is how the Northern shipping industry and warehouses didn't like the fact that the Southern planters were selling cotton directly to England -- cutting them out of the opportunity to be middlemen. There were many such examples of the Northern industry wanting to "get a piece of the action" in what Southerners were making and selling. This was going on wholesale many years before- What was going on really was that the Northern politicians often outnumbered the Southern ones in influence and I suppose downright votes in Congress--- So they were succeeding in getting legislation passed that wasn't favorable to the South a lot of the time. I do disagree with the author about the concept that "all the South had to do was give up slavery" to end the war -- That's not true. The South WOULD have had to give up slavery --- but they felt that they ALSO would have continued to give up other rights and freedoms in essence to the North - Slavery was just one of them -- and in many ways, not the most long lasting. The South could have mechanised over time, but that STILL wouldn't have meant that the North would allow them to sell directly to foreign countries without involving Northern interests. That desire of Northerners to horn in on Southerners selling directly to customers was what REALLY irked the major shipping and warehousing folks in the South.
Armed with the power of Thy name nothing can ever hurt me, and with Thy love in my heart all the world's afflictions can in no wise alarm me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Erinna1112 Original500© Member  Witty clever title pending
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The institution of slavery was already on its way out by the time the Civil War started. There were bans on import of new slaves, and while it's true that the population would have produced more (gads, am I the only one who's really disturbed by talking about PEOPLE in these terms???), it's not likely that it would have been self-sustaining for very much longer. Slavery was enough of an issue for several of the states to write it specifically into their secession documentation. I agree that the larger picture was the states' rights, and the southern states wanted more self-governance than the north was likely to give, but the institution itself cannot be discounted as a flash point for the conflict.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sirlamre wrote: Brian wrote:sirlamre wrote:From: I don't think there's a serious question but that the South would've had to give up slavery eventually. Industrialization would've eventually forced that upon them. But the issue isn't whether or not slavery was permanently indispensable. The issue was one of moral principle. Abolitionism wasn't just a matter of economics. It was a different way of seeing the African slaves. Certainly, Lincoln didn't see them as the equals of white men, but he did see them as worthy of freedom, even if he didn't have the constitutional power to free them as president. Take a look at the [url=http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debate1.htm]first Lincoln-Douglas debate[/ur], from August 21, 1858. You hear plenty of talk about slavery, and plenty of talk about war, but the issue of tariffs was one on which the parties agreed. (Douglas makes reference to these agreements in the first four debates.) Slavery was the 800-pound gorilla in the room, and it was the question of the spread of slavery in the territories that actually caused the rift.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > Aethelred's History Chamber > The South and the reasons for the Civil War -- it's not slavery | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Site Supporters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Posts Of The Day | Mock Forums | WowClassic | |
Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez