Hey guys, this is an issue that I have been dealing with recently. I can see poitns for both sides. I also came across this article on www.capmag.com Let me know what you guys think. Thanks
Aristotle100: I agree, however the one point I agree with was the issue of the constitution. How could we allow slavery with a constitution that talked about inalinable rights for all men? It seems to me that by denying them those rights, the north may have had a morla right to stop slavery, because in essance the south was in violation of the contract that is the constitution. Am I wrong?
I agree, however the one point I agree with was the issue of the constitution. How could we allow slavery with a constitution that talked about inalinable rights for all men? It seems to me that by denying them those rights, the north may have had a morla right to stop slavery, because in essance the south was in violation of the contract that is the constitution. Am I wrong?
William Lloyd Garrison suggested that the best way to end slavery would have been for the north to secede! (And not force escaped slaves to be sent back to their putative "owners")
μὴ παραχώρει τοῖς κακοῖς ἀλλ' εὐτολμώτερον ἀντιβάδιζε.
War of Southern Independance is to slavery As War of American Independance is to slavery. The american colonies did not seceed over slavery and neither did the south. And the agressors of both wars (GB and the north) did not initialize force to end slavery. Both wanted to protect their economic interests and national standing. The emancipation proclaimation was "A military necessity" according to lincoln, not to mention it alienated the south from European support (since they had just had a political revolution in response to slavery).
Thanks for all the responses and opinions guys, I appreciate it them a lot. Like I said this is just something that I had been mulling over in my head for a little while.
scineram:Of course the South seceded mostly over slavery.
No, they did not secede because of slavery even though many leftists claim they did. Slavery was not a devisive issue until the Union became desperate enough to make it one after the Battle of Antietam, Maryland, which was the bloodiest battle of the War. Abraham Lincoln himself was a racist. I would reccomend reading the "Civil War" (War of Northern Agression) chapter in Thomas E. Woods Jr. Ph.D's The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
mr_anonymous: scineram:Of course the South seceded mostly over slavery. No, they did not secede because of slavery even though many leftists claim they did. Slavery was not a devisive issue until the Union became desperate enough to make it one after the Battle of Antietam, Maryland, which was the bloodiest battle of the War. Abraham Lincoln himself was a racist. I would reccomend reading the "Civil War" (War of Northern Agression) chapter in Thomas E. Woods Jr. Ph.D's The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
You're mostly right, and scineram is mostly wrong. But we must bear in mind that many Southerners did believe that the principal issue was slavery. If you read the actual declarations of cause, some of them, like Mississippi's, only discuss slavery. Georgia's does a pretty good job of citing other issues.
I wrote about this to Tom DiLorenzo, and got a disappointing reply. His book would be immensely improved if he frankly admitted that when war breaks out, various parties have differing ideas of the reasons and goals of the war. Consider how much confusion there is about why Bush invaded Iraq, and we were all alive to witness the events themselves. Imagine two posters in 2168 arguing about "the" reason for the war?
--Len
Len Budney:But we must bear in mind that many Southerners did believe that the principal issue was slavery.
Len Budney: You're mostly right, and scineram is mostly wrong. But we must bear in mind that many Southerners did believe that the principal issue was slavery. If you read the actual declarations of cause, some of them, like Mississippi's, only discuss slavery. Georgia's does a pretty good job of citing other issues. I wrote about this to Tom DiLorenzo, and got a disappointing reply. His book would be immensely improved if he frankly admitted that when war breaks out, various parties have differing ideas of the reasons and goals of the war. Consider how much confusion there is about why Bush invaded Iraq, and we were all alive to witness the events themselves. Imagine two posters in 2168 arguing about "the" reason for the war? --Len
Thank you for making this point! There HAD to be Southerners who really believed they were seceding over slavery even if the other causes were the 'real' reasons. Also, the question as to why slavery is cited SO MANY times in SC's and Georgia's declarations of secession while sources I trust are telling me that wasn't the reason is still puzzling to me. I even know of very intelligent libertarians who inisist that Southerners were racists who seceded to protect slavery, so this question HAS to be addressed in order to be countered, in my opinion. Otherwise, the two sides just wind up talking past each other.
I happened to be reading DiLorenzo's Real Lincoln when I took the tour of Ft. Sumter for the first (and probably last) time. I felt very confused rather than enlightened for having read the book, since what I was hearing on the tour also seemed to be backed up by research. When I got home that day, I thumbed through the whole book trying to find an explanation as to why the slavery explanation sounds so plausible, to no avail, of course--so that is disappointing for DiLorenzo not to consider your suggestion. (Feel free to cite that anecdote if you ever contact him again on this subject!) I think Charles Adam's in 'When in the Course of Human Events' hints as to why the slavery explanation sounds plausible on the surface--that they were using it mainly as an excuse to rally around--but I'm still looking for a frank discussion that will take this question head on.
...but what do I know.
I think Charles Adam's in 'When in the Course of Human Events' hints as to why the slavery explanation sounds plausible on the surface--that they were using it mainly as an excuse to rally around--but I'm still looking for a frank discussion that will take this question head on.
That's a great book. The best I've found so far.
--Len.
When you guys say that the southern states seceded because of slavery what do you mean? I have heard it a couple times, but nobody says what they mean by it. Are you suggesting that the southern states seceded to protect slavery in their states? Because slavery was not being challenged by the union in states where it already existed (The Missouri Compromise) and it even opened the issue of slavery up to western states with the Kansas-Nebraska Act through popular sovergnity. All of the states that initially seceded had always had slavery, and the union was not threatening to take it away from them. I am not saying that slavery had nothing to do with the war, it obviously played a role. I believe that it did not become a major issue until 2 years into the war.
mr_anonymous:When you guys say that the southern states seceded because of slavery what do you mean? I have heard it a couple times, but nobody says what they mean by it. Are you suggesting that the southern states seceded to protect slavery in their states?
I mean that several states, truthfully or not, cited slavery as the casus belli. I gave a reference above to primary sources. The biggest bone of contention concerning slavery was failure of the free states to honor fugitive slave laws, which meant that escaped slaves who made it north were irrecoverable except by kidnapping. That raised the cost of slavery considerably, so even bearing in mind Lincoln's willingness to enshrine slavery forever in the Constitution, the institution was definitely under economic threat.
Ignoring for a moment the immorality of slavery, imagine if half the country declared itself a safe haven for car thieves? As soon as your car crosses the Mason-Dixon line, you know you'll never get it back, even though you're still paying on a five-figure loan for it. No matter how illegal car theft was officially, you'd be plenty steamed.