It was about slavery

[Casull]

I still sit in conversations with people who use the "N" word as it has been used for 150 years.

 
 
William, so what.  I'll bet there are plenty of people who still sit in conversations with people who use "cracker", "white trash", "pollack", "wop", "spic" and any other number of racial slurs.  People tend toward racism, regardless of color.  I don't see the "n" word being any worse or better than any of the others (only the PC police see things that way).

[BUGEYE]

blacks use the "N" word much more than any whites I know.  and since my county is about 90% black, it's very common.

[williamlayton]

What we are discussing is racial segregation and disenfranchisement. I agree that disenfranchisement was--and still is in some places--the mode of the land in most places. I would also agree that is a word they use amongst themselves.
wop and such words do not carry the same meaning today as they were used in their original context.
The point still is that Much of the reason for the Civil War was all about slavery and equality under the constitution. Those that were not slave owners were still all about NOT haveing this class of person as equal under the constitution.
The South fought, and won, this war for over a 100 years.
Blessings
 

[Casull]

The point still is that Much of the reason for the Civil War was all about slavery and equality under the constitution.

 
I don't buy that for a second.  There were few, north or south, that wanted equality for blacks, most specifically Lincoln.

[williamlayton]

I made no distinction about inequality---well let me put it this way, not one iota of the country was immune to this social segregation--I made the comment about one of the reasons the South was afraid of emancipation and what they did to sustain this for a 100 years after the war.
I was never able to buy into most of the stuff I heard/was taught about inferiority of the races. I saw with my own eyes and thru experience that there was more to human ability than was influnced by race.
This conversation could go on forever, but, I hope I have clarified my thoughts.
Blessings

[Spirithawk]

Saying that it was caused by any one single reason is simply ignoring all the other many reasons. Kinda looking at things with blinders on.

[williamlayton]

Causes?
Sure there were a number of reasons---slavery seems to have been a biggy.
Blessings

[eastbank]

well, with out the slaves king cotton would have rotted in the fields or the crops would have been very small and would have not brought much wealth to the south. come to think of it the south only had cotten as a good cash crop. i know my own people at that time spent most of their time trying to scrape out a meger liking on a very small farm and with no good cash crop,were just interested in making do. picture is of the small farm in pa. in the late 1850,s. eastbank.

[subdjoe]

well, with out the slaves king cotton would have rotted in the fields or the crops would have been very small and would have not brought much wealth to the south.

Which in turn would have hurt the mills in the north, many of which would not have been built in the first place if not for King Cotton.  And without that, much of the capital of the north would not have been created. 

In fact, without the slave trade, that famous shrine of freedom, Faneuil Hall, would not have been build, since that family made most of its fortune in the slave trade.  That goes for a lot of north eastern and mid-Atlantic families, got rich building slave ships, refitting ships for the slave trade, provisioning ships for that trade, financing runs by slavers, and crewing on the ships.  And most of those sold their human cargo, not in the southern states, but in South America and the Caribbean.  Depending on which set of numbers you care to use, something between 90% and 95% of all blacks who survived the passage were not sold in the US.  So, who really profited the most from slavery?

[teamnelson]

No wars start over single issues, and seldom for the stated issues. That's a prima facie understanding of those to whom it's left to implement policy with arms. I've had people who've never left their home town tell me facts about wars these combat weary eyes know to be different. You want the truth about the 2nd War for American Independence? Read the firsthand accounts passed down in journals, letters and oral traditions from the time. Convinced me.

[williamlayton]

There is no doubt that shortsigtedness on the part of all who dealt in these slave trades contributed to this clash.
If you say that without slaves king cotton would not have come about, then I must ask how you think this.
America is a republic--it developed a HUGE agricultural kindom without slavery. If there had been no slavery these farms would have developed under the same conditions that came about thru the mid-west.
I think you think that there was only one way for it to develope.
Personally, I think there was never any room for slavery in the Republic. If it had never been would there have been this conflict?
Blessings

[eastbank]

the civil war was not all about slavery, but it was a big part of it,if not the north after winning the war would have taken the slaves north to be owned by northers.but they were freed.and its true a lot you post was true,but england was a large buyer of cotton(the south tried to get england see them as a country). the north had the rivers and coal to keep its industry going and ways to get its goods to market,here and overseas,s. after the blockades started the south was bottled up and had no way to export its goods, and what ports in the south blockade? oh by the way the north must have had enought cotten and wool to cloth it people and army for the four year war, but the south could not keep its armies fully clothed or citizens. at petersburg 50 miles of rails and track were ordered for the up comming battle and was recieved in case it was needed, the whole south didn,t have 50 miles of spare track in it. i think it just sticks in alot of southern craws that a black man does not have to get off the side walk when they walk by. the wars been over for alot of years,its part of our combined history,but not current history. after alls said and done we know who laid down their guns and flags and walked home. i think the war was a huge mistake and did not have to happen, but for the pride of the south who paid a dear price for it. eastbank.

[teamnelson]

and the first state to abolish slavery was?


Slavery was not an exclusively southern issue; it was practiced in the North as it was practiced in the South. And bigotry was also alive and well, and is still alive and well, on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. The issue of slavery as a social issue (not economic) became a handy foil for public consumption, and a strategic weapon against the south because slavery was a vital part of their economy. In the north, slavery was not as vital as they had plenty of extremely poor european immigrants they could treat as technically free, but in horrible work/living conditions (and a higher death rate than african slaves in the south) to keep the economy propped up. (So I guess its okay if one white man thinks another white man is inferior because he's from an inferior nation like Scotland or Ireland, but its not okay if Africa is involved?) The Northern strategic planners had no social agenda, they wanted to win a war for monetary gain. Not a single slave north of the MD was freed under the EC, so even while all slaves were supposed to be set free in the South, Northern slave owners were unaffected. Yep, I'm not a southerner; those of my family that were here during the time headed west to escape from being "enslaved" by one of the bosses in the 5 bourourghs (up North).


As for today, there are many in Manhattan and other politically correct northern climes that like to spit on my kind and use profanity as we walk by in uniform. This Friday, Veteran's Day, there are hundreds of restaurants in southern Virginia that are offering free meals to active, retired or veterans, and I'm encouraging all of my folks to participate and allow the people to express their love for them (there's no racial requirement on those meals by the way). I have my doubts that such a thing will be practiced in Berkley, San Francisco, Austin, or NYC.

[eastbank]

you are wrong,the golden correl resturants here gives free meals to vets on veterans day. and when i came home from vn i changed in to civilian cloths to keep the asshol*s from brothering me. eastbank.

[teamnelson]

Where's "here"? Nice to hear one chain supports Vets. Would you say that's indicative of the entire area? I'm guessing no if you had to change into civilian clothes. The spitting incident I was referring to was in NY 3 weeks ago, not 40 years ago.

[williamlayton]

TN
Have you read all of these post or are you picking up down here in the last few?
Slavery was a slippery slope for all of America. You are correct about slave wages in the North---but that is the reason for Unions.
The South continued to rebuff reconcrtuction foe 100 years---they won that battle.
Men will always try and control others---folowing in the footsteps of their father.
Blessings

[eastbank]

the changing of cloths was in south, if you live long enough 3 weeks will turn into 40 years. the difference between the slaves and the new imigrents was the slaves had no where to go,while the imigrents could go any where with out being hunted down. which one would you want to be? for me its a no brainer. and yes there are other resturants that give vets meals on vetererns day, in pa.at the watering hole i go to,you can,t buy a drink on vetererns day as a vet. no matter how you like to paint the picture, slavery was like a big hand out to the cotton industry, allowing them to raise and harvest the cotton cheaper than others with out slave labor, plus any other labor that needed done. the standard of liveing in the south was raised for thoses who owned or profited from the slave labor eastbank.

[teamnelson]

Brother WL, I have read them through, here and elsewhere. You made the salient point about whatmen will always wish to do to others. That we're still chasing the red herring of slavery is proof your point is truth. The real crime of that war will go unnoticed by most until the time when all sins are revealed. We are about to see a similar conflict in our nation for the same reason, because were so caught up over slavery we missed the point.

EB, so it seems we agree that bigotry exists everywhere, as does support for troops. Types of bigotry varies, but the general issue exists. I've been in uniform since 87, I saw racial bigotry at fort Polk in those early years. Today it's idealogical bigotry aimed at those who love God, serve their country, like firearms or believe in the right to be free. OWS is a form of bigotry against ideas I hold dear, and if they succeed, I will be enslaved with no way to escape. My point is, the south has never held the market on bigotry; it's universal. So if you want a cause for war, you must look through that issue to what lies beneath.

[williamlayton]

There is no doubt in my mind That much of the thought of Harem Sacrum will come to pass---perhaps not as he predicted or involve only the ones he predicted.
A Republic must be allowed to evolve. Yup! I said that. It is not a static, cast in stone framework. The economics drive the changes--and--economics is all what a Republic is about---the driving force and allowing everybody a chance to stick their finger in the pie.
personally, I like that---think that is what life is--from a worldly position. Freedom and liberty---we who are Christian know the boss.
There are many who want the status quo and that is from where the conflicts erupt. Change is scary when you are quiet and settled. No one thinks about when they were not quiet and settled and wanted a piece of the pie.
Blessings   

[Hooker]

Saying that it was caused by any one single reason is simply ignoring all the other many reasons. Kinda looking at things with blinders on.

There's more truth in that then you know SH

Causes?
Sure there were a number of reasons---slavery seems to have been a biggy.
Blessings

Slavery was used by the north and made a big issue ,because it use to be that in this country that is was hard to rally folks around sticking it to their neighbors.

That's not to say that there were not a lot of miss cues on both sides of the war.
The fact remains that the north was not the victim, but a very clever aggressor.
The victim in this case was the Constitution something in which we are all still paying for.

Pat

[williamlayton]

How can you say that the United States was an agressor to the United States?
The North fought to retain the Union---the South, in my opinion, fought to retain slavery. Not in totality but as a major reason.
I also think that the Southern war mongers used propganda much more to whip up the flames than the North did---and--they did it for personal gains.
The constutution was a United States thing---were hey fighting for a United States thing?
It is what it is.
Blessings

[teamnelson]

The fruit of that war was less liberty, less republic. When a unified democracy became of greater import that constitutional integrity, the North became the aggressor. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. The steady growth of the size and reach of the federal government can be traced back to that war.

For sake  of argument, let's say slavery was the issue. Where is that constitutionally addressed? Anything not expressly granted to the fed falls to whom per the constitution? The states. So regardless of how you feel about slavery, states had the right to determine for themselves anything not given to the fed. Secession was a legal recourse if the state felt it was appropriate. A constitutional amendment to abolish was a legal recourse as well. For those that think the North was all opposed to slavery, why did they not pass a constitutional amendment to abolish while they held the majority? Why didn't the EC free all slaves in the US?

Union and abolition are neat ideas, not constitutional and to place them over the constitution was the real crime.

What if the Fed says gay marriage is good? For the sake of the union, should all states give in? Is it not legal for states to secede it they want, whether you think it's smart or not? Does the fed have that power in the constitution to force states against their will?

Pick a social issue not in the BOR, we debate a lot of them here. If the fed encroached as they are want to do, what is the states recourse? If that issue is important, like say abortion is to me, what is the constitutional way to resolve that? What if i were president? Would I abuse my executive privilege to declare abortion illegal? Would I be a hypocrite to declare it illegal only in those states I didn't like?

It all points to something larger than slavery.

[eastbank]

the negro,s in the south or in the north, all thought that slavery sucked,i think we all can agree on that. if it was dieing out,it sure was not dieing out fast enough for the slaves. and the south was resisting it all the way,to civil war.slavery was going to die,its too bad so many good people had to die to get it killed. eastbank.

[subdjoe]

the negro,s in the south or in the north, all thought that slavery sucked,i think we all can agree on that. if it was dieing out,it sure was not dieing out fast enough for the slaves. and the south was resisting it all the way,to civil war.slavery was going to die,its too bad so many good people had to die to get it killed. eastbank.

Every other nation that has ended slavery did it without a war.  Are you saying that there was no way it would have ended here without a war?

[teamnelson]

Constitutional Convention of 1787, all states agreed to end importation of slaves. Went into effect in 1808. Prior to 1808 all states had individual laws prohibiting participation in the international slave trade. Constitutional process in action: convention, and sovereign state action. All states unified.

Only thing still in existence at the time of the war was slave ownership, and internal trade, in both the north and south. And even in northern states who had abolished prior to the 13th amendment, the precursor to Jim Crowe laws were in effect, severe racial segregation. Racism in the North against freed slaves, European immigrants ... those who came later.

13th amendment was the first of the Reconstruction acts, but not the last. Again, why did they not pass the 13th with the northern monopoly on the union? After all, to the north, the south was in rebellion (not exercising their constitutionally protected right to secede) so they should've had unanimous support in congress during the war, and it would've been stronger than an executive order like the EC! Fact is, slave ownership was alive and well in the north.

 What the south fought in reconstruction was northern enslavement of southern autonomy and resources. But it was too late. Union trumped republic, executive trumped constitution, precedent was set and we've been sliding downhill since.

The war was unnecessary to resolve slavery. But it was necessary to assert the constitutionally protected rights of states, and that cause lost. And were facing the same issue today around firearms, immigration, gay rights and taxes. If the republic loses again, someone will say it was over homosexuality.

[subdjoe]

13th amendment was the first of the Reconstruction acts, but not the last. Again, why did they not pass the 13th with the northern monopoly on the union? After all, to the north, the south was in rebellion (not exercising their constitutionally protected right to secede) so they should've had unanimous support in congress during the war, and it would've been stronger than an executive order like the EC! Fact is, slave ownership was alive and well in the north.

Congress did pass a 13th Amendment in early March, 1961. It was known as the Corwin Amendment.  Also known as the Perpetual Slavery Amendment.  Without ANY votes from the seven seceded states (the deep south), it was passed in Congress.  If, indeed, "it was about slavery" all that the deep south had to do was rescind the state bills of secession and rejoin the Union.

[teamnelson]

Good point subdjoe!

Text of the Corwin Amendment:
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Passed both houses without the 7 states participation, signed by Buchanan, and supported by Lincoln in his inaugural address. As an Amendment is only needed state ratification, which it was receiving slowly until it looked like Northern victory was assured.

Really pokes a hole in the "it was about slavery" argument when prior to and during the war, northern states and Lincoln supported such a constitutional amendment.

[williamlayton]

Well let's hear it for slavery.
Then what  is all the hulabaloo about that it wasn't slavery--ya'll say it wasn't then say ya'll had a right to.
Seems like the South fought emancipation for 100 years after the war.
I don't want to hear anything about seperate but equal---I know all about that equal stuff.
The Union was the constitution--the South was all about seperate nations.
Do ya'll want to go to that in this world today? Are you happy we were not seperate on Dec. 7, 1941?
Blessings

[teamnelson]

Red herrings WL.

No one is advocating slavery, not me at least. Evidently Lincoln and the congress of the Union felt slavery was not prohibited nor prohibitable under the constitution until they were winning.
And arguing for the dissolution of state rights on the basis of what happened 80 years later? That's not a rational or constitutional argument. The topic at hand is what the so called civil war was about, not what could've happened.

So WL, what exactly do you believe the constitution does? Establish an all powerful Fed? Limit states? Grant individual rights? The difference to my mind between your conclusion regarding the so called civil war and mine has to do with the constitution, not slavery.

[williamlayton]

The constitution is a binder.
The Federal Government is Given powers that unite the states.
An example is that no state can execute a treaty with a foreign power.
The Federal government is responsible for ifastructure---roads/highways/riverways, collect tariffs and can create taxes with which to support the operation of the government and government services.
This is also a type of red herring TN.
What were you doing if you think that slavery was not the main issue of the war?
We know that there was a great push in the US to emancipate all slaves.
We know that many plans had been proposed dealing with how to treat these released slaves. This was welll before the war.
This act, which you brought up, was an act of the Congress to avoid the war. The North did not want war--it was the South who was willing to go to war to secede.
Why did the average Southerner want secession? I don't think they did. I think that the powers at bay in the South were slave owners and more than that, were slave traders.
There was a great deal of interest involved with the East India Co--which was English--and the Southern slave traders.
I think that SC was the firebox for secession. If they, SC, could become anation, it could maintain its free trade with England and the East India Co.
The Confederacy was a farce as a nation. It was all about maintaining control.
Blessings