It was about slavery

[teamnelson]

Brother William, it is clear to me that our fundamental disagreement is over the Constitution. Where you see it binding states, I see it binding the fed to only do certain things, leaving everything else to the states. I see it as a covenant between sovereign states, recognizing a federal government as a necessary evil, but writing the Constitution in such a way as to ensure the creator endowed rights of the individual were never trampled by a fed, that the fed was limited in scope, and the bulk of responsibility and power was retained by the states. It is a document to limit the power of a centralized government, coming out of a war against a tyrannical centralized government.


To my mind, that was the issue of the war in question, and Lincoln and the northern congress agreed. Corwin's amendment was not about slavery, it was about whether or not the states had the right to determine how they would handle the question of slavery, tarrifs, or any other issue. If you read the text, it was written to protect states rights. That was the real carrot in the legislation that you're right, was an attempt to divert the war.


I peacefully agree to disagree with you sir, on this, and look forward to those other areas in which we might find agreement.

[williamlayton]

TN
No! We are in complete agreement.
What I see is that you project what this war was about to our present government.
I agree that the Feds have overstepped its boundries--that came as a result of 100 years of Democratic influence (read--Dixiecrats) on this nation.
This war did not cause this--the people who elected them caused this.
Blessings

[teamnelson]

Brother William, then I would say that the North and Lincoln seriously abused the Constitution with regards to the South, for reasons other than slavery. Slavery became a useful cover issue as abolition was a populist social concern much like any populist social concern, with the added benefit of being harmful to the South in a way that was in keeping with their actual issue (not slavery).

I contend if the North was sincere about the constitution, and about slavery, Corwin would've been ratified unanimously even after hostilities broke out, and the EC would've in fact been written to abolish entirely. Instead all evidence in the record questions the Norths sincerity. The way reconstruction was handled further questions their stated intent, and the fact that the south has been demonized and slavery laid over it all has ensured the real issues are forgotten.

I then come forward to today where the issue persists, it led to war last time and it will again unless we keep the issue on top and not allow it to become buried under social concerns, no matter how legitimate they may be ... as slavery was.

Hope that helps, Chaps

[williamlayton]

The corwin legislation was a last ditch effort to appease the South. It did not work.
If you think that reconstruction was about anything other than slavery i need to hear that reasoning.
Certainly the North entered into a period of reconstruction because of policy and resurgence of Southerners refusing to let the war go.
I can see this same reconstruction necessary after every war in the place that lost the war.
I also understand that there were abuses to these policies which caused a great deal of friction and hardened some of the fanatical.
What do you do with the Dixiecrats and Jim Crowe laws.
These certainly were not aimed at anyone other than freed slaves.
Blessings

[missouri dave]

Lincoln himself stated the war was not about slavery but preserving the union. Grant stated that if the war had been about freeing the slaves he would have offered his sword to the other side. The confederates were fighting for freedom from an oppressive tyrannical government much like their forefathers did in the revolutionary war.  No such thing as a "Civil War" nor was it a "War to Make Men Free". It was "The War for Southern Independence". If the south had won the country today would be much more like our forefathers intended in the constitution. If the colonists had lost they would be nothing more than rebels hung as traitors. History is just that HIS STORY. The victors story.

[williamlayton]

It certainly was a bout states rights Dave.
Theshort sightedness was that the Confederacy would not have become another Union and it really was not so much about states rights as it was the states being able to become nations.
Blessings

[missouri dave]

Excellent observation. Bravo!

[wncchester]

"The confederates were fighting for freedom from an oppressive tyrannical government much like their forefathers did in the revolutionary war.  No such thing as a "Civil War"..."
 
Correct.  Our Revolution with England was MUCH more a 'civil war' than the war of 1861-65, which was a failed revolution over basically the same over-bearing govenment.  But winners get to put the labels they wish on it; doesn't make it true but that's the way it gets into the winner's history books.

[williamlayton]

The South wanted to continue slavery. I agree that each state had somewhat of a different agenda--but slavery was the core for most.
I don't much disagree that what we are now is better than what the Confederacy offered.
If we look to what the confederacy would have become then we must look to what the Dixiecrats brought about.
Blessings
 

[P.A. Myers]

Little known fact [at least by me] : New Hampshire did not outlaw slavery until after the war started.
                                           Merry Christmas

P.A.

[Spirithawk]

The South believed that the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, made each state free to govern theirselve's. The North wanted one central government for all. Many things, such as slavery, were contributing factors but it boiled down to states independence being the main issue. I base that on the memoirs of those who fought and not on historical facts and statistics. There was no one single reason and it's a bit foolish to pick one thing and say that it was the whole reason for the war.

[williamlayton]

We changed from a Conferate form of government after we found it did not work, to aconstitutional democracy.
In this form all of the people voted and goverened this nation as one nation, not many nations.
I understand what you folks want it to be, but it is not.
Blessings

[Sourdough]

OK, I have not read all the arguments and don't care what a bunch of folks that have not been here in the South and talked to folks that were there, or their decendents.  Everything I have learned was the North who had manufactoring capabilities wanted the Souths Raw Materials, Cotton, Tobacco, Molasses, and lumber.  The North did not want to pay what these items would bring on the open market.  Meaning England would pay a much higher price for cotton than the Northern merchants.  So the Northern States made it against the law for the Southern States to sell their products to anyone but the North.  They sent ships down to blockade the Southern Ports.  The Southerners got tired of it, and decided to fight back.

To help break the back of the Southern States Lincoln decided to issue a proclamation to free the Southern Slaves.  Lincoln's hopes was once the Slaves heard it they would throw down their tools and walk away from the farms, denying the Southerners of their income.  That part did not work.

GB, unfortunately History is written by the victor.  And now that the ones that was there are no longer with us.  Somefolks have taken it upon themselves to rewrite history the way they want it written.  No matter what really happened.

[Spirithawk]

OK, I have not read all the arguments and don't care what a bunch of folks that have not been here in the South and talked to folks that were there, or their decendents.  Everything I have learned was the North who had manufactoring capabilities wanted the Souths Raw Materials, Cotton, Tobacco, Molasses, and lumber.  The North did not want to pay what these items would bring on the open market.  Meaning England would pay a much higher price for cotton than the Northern merchants.  So the Northern States made it against the law for the Southern States to sell their products to anyone but the North.  They sent ships down to blockade the Southern Ports.  The Southerners got tired of it, and decided to fight back.

To help break the back of the Southern States Lincoln decided to issue a proclamation to free the Southern Slaves.  Lincoln's hopes was once the Slaves heard it they would throw down their tools and walk away from the farms, denying the Southerners of their income.  That part did not work.

GB, unfortunately History is written by the victor.  And now that the ones that was there are no longer with us.  Somefolks have taken it upon themselves to rewrite history the way they want it written.  No matter what really happened.

Well said! +1

[williamlayton]

Double post.

[williamlayton]

I don't know of a law that forbade exports.
Blessings

[Sourdough]

Well William, it was in the Tennessee History books when I was going to school.  And since my family were traders who took thing to port at New Orleans, their business was affected.  I remember my Great-Grandfather talking about it when I was a small guy.  He was there, and was a Doctor for the Confederacy. 

[SHOOTALL]

Was the war an excuse to free the slaves in the South at a time when the owners would not be entitled to compensation for the loss of property ? Was this a conspiracy on the level of the Kennedy's or the 911 bombings ? 
The war was about many things slavery one of them but not the main cause. The right of a state(s) to leave the union was the main reason IMHO.

[BAGTIC]

This thing was boiling down to an us vs them thing since the was of 1812. There were a lot of things that were issues.
Mainly it was SC vs anything or anybody that defied SC thought. SC wanted to control the thoght of the nation, when it  could not that is when they said i will take my ball and go home.
Maine had done this years earlier when it did not join the UNION--but came to terms later.
Now the South tried, God bless 'em, but it was an illogical stand.
The South failed to realize that the UNION was full of folks who did not agree with them.
Then it became a badge of honor to rebel.
Sam Houston told the folks of Texas he would not sign any paper that demanded loyalty to anyone but the Union. He also told them they were fixing to get their butt handed to theirownselves on a silver platter.
Now to be honest in the whole of this discussion---the South lost the war but won the battle of reconstruction.
This war raged for over a 100 years--the South demanding that they were superior to all. They brought about socialism in America.
Blessings

More ignorance. Maine did not join the union at the beginning because Maine did not exist at the beginning. The territory that became Maine was part of Massachussets. Maine did not even exist until Massachussetts decided to divide into two states.

[BAGTIC]

Lincoln himself stated the war was not about slavery but preserving the union. Grant stated that if the war had been about freeing the slaves he would have offered his sword to the other side. The confederates were fighting for freedom from an oppressive tyrannical government much like their forefathers did in the revolutionary war.  No such thing as a "Civil War" nor was it a "War to Make Men Free". It was "The War for Southern Independence". If the south had won the country today would be much more like our forefathers intended in the constitution. If the colonists had lost they would be nothing more than rebels hung as traitors. History is just that HIS STORY. The victors story.

Just like the attack on Pearl Harbor was really a "War for Japanese Independence". The confederates had already achieved their independence. No one was forcing them to remain in the Union. Unfortunately they were determined to force their values on the rest of the nation by force if necessary.

[teamnelson]

Just like the attack on Pearl Harbor was really a "War for Japanese Independence". The confederates had already achieved their independence. No one was forcing them to remain in the Union. Unfortunately they were determined to force their values on the rest of the nation by force if necessary.

This is a new one on me ... you're saying that Lincoln did not want the South back in the Union, that the North was happy with the Confederacy's independence, and the war was to protect the Union from the South's agressive agenda to force their values on the rest of the nation? Did I understand you correctly?

[teamnelson]

This thing was boiling down to an us vs them thing since the was of 1812. There were a lot of things that were issues.
Mainly it was SC vs anything or anybody that defied SC thought. SC wanted to control the thoght of the nation, when it  could not that is when they said i will take my ball and go home.
Maine had done this years earlier when it did not join the UNION--but came to terms later.
Now the South tried, God bless 'em, but it was an illogical stand.
The South failed to realize that the UNION was full of folks who did not agree with them.
Then it became a badge of honor to rebel.
Sam Houston told the folks of Texas he would not sign any paper that demanded loyalty to anyone but the Union. He also told them they were fixing to get their butt handed to theirownselves on a silver platter.
Now to be honest in the whole of this discussion---the South lost the war but won the battle of reconstruction.
This war raged for over a 100 years--the South demanding that they were superior to all. They brought about socialism in America.
Blessings

More ignorance. Maine did not join the union at the beginning because Maine did not exist at the beginning. The territory that became Maine was part of Massachussets. Maine did not even exist until Massachussetts decided to divide into two states.

Which occurred in 1820, 41 years BEFORE the Civil War began, so yes they were a state at the beginning of the war.


Perhaps what our brother was referring to was that the state currently known as Maine seceded from Massachusetts and filed for formal recognition as a state. They did not secede from the Union, but they did from their state. Massachusetts was not particularly pleased about it so this can't be viewed as a joyful separation under the initiative of Mass. The people in Maine had deep resentment against the folks to their immediate south. Their acceptance to the Union as a state, independent of Mass, was granted in conjunction with the Missouri Compromise, where Missouri was accepted to the Union as a slave state.


As recently as 2010, there is a proposal for Northern Maine to secede from Maine, and become its own state.


Secession, which is all SC really did regardless of motive, has been and always shall be a Constitutionally protected right of a sovereign state. The Union was voluntary. Its slightly more complicated than quitting a gym membership, true, but definitely not forbidden.

[BAGTIC]

Where do people get this nonsense? Lincoln did not free the slaves before secession because he did not have the legal authority. He also did not free them upon secession.  He only freed them after the CSA attacked the USA. Likewise there was no boycott of southern trade until after the beginning of the war. It was no different than WW 1 or WW 2..
Yes, Lincoln said he wanted the secessionist states to stay in the Union. He also publicly declared that he was willing to abide the continuation of slavery if that was necessary to keep the Union together. The south could have stayed in the Union and kept slavery. Lincoln and many other northern politicians recognized that regardless of what they personally wanted the states had a constitutional right to secede. They did not use force to bring them back in. They were actively trying to work out some sort of compromise. Then a bunch of southern hotheads started a war. It was not necessary to start a war. Eventually slavery would have died because it was economically untenable. Eventually, with most of the proslavery staes gone from the Union the remaining abolitionist members would have abolished slavery in the remaining states. England was soon to develope it own sources of cotton in Egypt and elsewhere and the South's profitable quasi-monopoly would have dried up and  coming mechanization would have driven the fatal spike through the heart of slavery. All that was needed for slavery to die without a war was for the CSA to keep its hands to itself.
Regardless of the economics and states rights issues there was the issue of HUMAN RIGHTS. Apparently the South felt it had a right to deny human beings the most basic human rights. Why? Because they thought that the State's  right to behave in a totally immoral and inhumane manner took precedence over individual human rights. Shades of Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, or North Korea.  One of our former Presidents commented that the reason the South has so many churches is not because it is so righteous but because it is so in need of moral guidance. Morality being an unknown in many parts of the South to this day.
Now, Maine did NOT secede from Massachussetts and Massachussetts did not oppose the division. Under the Constitution when a state divides it requires the approval of a majority of both the old state and the newly formed state. If either part of the former stae of Massachussetts objected to the plan it had veto power. The situation when West Virginia seceded from Virginia during the Civil War was different in that Virginia did not agree to the secession. After the war West Virginia agreed to pay compensation to Virginia. I believe it was finally payed off last year. In this case Virginia's approval was not needed because at the time Virginia was no longer a part of the USA, it was a part of the CSA, and no longer had any rights or responsibilities under the US Constitution.
Slavery could not be abolished in the USA without a Constitutional amendment. The slave states represented enough votes to block any amendment. They also had enough votes to block the creation of any new states in a manner that would threaten a constitutional change. There was an impasse which neither side could control. The situation could have continued indefinitely, without secession, without war.
 
TEAMNELSON   "Which occurred in 1820, 41 years BEFORE the Civil War began, so yes they were a state at the beginning of the war."
What twisted logic is this? If Maine was a state of the USA when the Civil War began then they were part of the Union cause. Individual states do not exercise a local option when the nation goes to war. When did your state declare war on Japan? Maine did not secede from Massachussetts. Massachussetts voluntarily divided itself. 

Every state has the right to secede under the Constitution. SC did that. Having established an independent identity no state, foreign or domestic, has the right to attack us without suffering the consequences. THe CSA attacked the USA. The CSA got its ass kicked and paid the price, just like Gaermany and Japan. The difference is that the Germans and Japanese being intelligent and rational people took advantage of the opportunity to effect an "attitude adjustment" while the south engaged in a century long stubborn temper tantrum that resulted in the economic and cultural retardation of southern society. They decided that they would 'rather be right' that be educated, prosperous, and well fed. Ignorant and proud of it. Rednecks forever. Yahoo!!!Quote from: missouri dave on November 18, 2011, 08:03:13 PM

Lincoln himself stated the war was not about slavery but preserving the union. Grant stated that if the war had been about freeing the slaves he would have offered his sword to the other side. The confederates were fighting for freedom from an oppressive tyrannical government much like their forefathers did in the revolutionary war.  No such thing as a "Civil War" nor was it a "War to Make Men Free". It was "The War for Southern Independence".

If the south had won the country today would be much more like our forefathers intended in the constitution. If the colonists had lost they would be nothing more than rebels hung as traitors. History is just that HIS STORY. The victors story.

Yup! If the south had been victorious  it would today be more like the forefathers intended. Half the population would be slaves. Most of the rest would be ignorant barefooted sharecroppers.. Oops. If the south had won it would not  be just the  south that would be that way. It would be the whole country.
It was not the way our forfathers "INTENDED". Most of them opposed slavery. It was a compromise of principles that they choked down in order to maintain solidarity during the Revolution because they realized that without unity the cause of independence would be lost. Ironically if we had lost the revolution the British would have abolished slavery long before we did. Also when abolitionism swept through the rest of the world, including Britain, our markets would have dried up. I can see picketers with signs saying  BOYCOTT SLAVE COTTON.  The fact is the south was on the wrong side. The wrong side politically, the wrong side economically. The wrong side morally and many southerners still have not figured it out yet.

[Casull]

Wow, that is impressive.  I don't think I've seen many posts with that magnitude of inaccuracies.

[BAGTIC]

The South believed that the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, made each state free to govern theirselve's. The North wanted one central government for all. Many things, such as slavery, were contributing factors but it boiled down to states independence being the main issue. I base that on the memoirs of those who fought and not on historical facts and statistics. There was no one single reason and it's a bit foolish to pick one thing and say that it was the whole reason for the war.

The North did NOT want one central government. States Rights was as essential to northerners as to southerners. The Great Daniel Webster defended the state's rights. During the War of 1812 several New England states threatened to secede because the war was interferring with their trade. After that war the Whig party fell into disfavor, declined and soon became  extinct over that very issue. The move to big centralized government began with the Civil War. It was the southern secession that precipitated the rise of statism in America. Every time we find ourself in a significant war the power of the central government expands until soon it will consume us all. Look at what has happened to America in the last 20 years.

[BAGTIC]

Wow, that is impressive.  I don't think I've seen many posts with that magnitude of inaccuracies.

What inaccuracies?
 

[Casull]

1. 

the CSA attacked the USA

2. 

It was not the way our forfathers "INTENDED". Most of them opposed slavery

3. 

Yup! If the south had been victorious  it would today be more like the forefathers intended. Half the population would be slaves. Most of the rest would be ignorant barefooted sharecroppers

 
There's a start.  I actually thought I was being charitable by not bringing up the bigotry and pure hatred dripping out of that post.

[teamnelson]

bagtic, I've confess I've not read historical commentary on that part of American History, I've focused mainly on the writings of the key figures - horse's mouth and all that. And not much of what you've posted jives with what the players themselves said. Forgive me, but you're not convincing me. Could be your tone as well, that usually makes or breaks an argument.

[jamesrus]

Reconstruction was a time of terrible occurences in the south. I have a handwritten account and a local newspaper clipping from 1867 from Monroe Louisiana...in which an ancestor of mine who was a surgeon during the war for the South, was murdered by Negro Federal troops over an argument about food. The Negro soldiers were arrested and released without any repurcussions. My ancestor was unarmed and was gunned down in the street, being shot 5 times. He was a middle class landowner before the war and treated both Southern and Northern troops throughout the war without regards to where they came from. I have several letters he wrote home about the things he witnessed during the war and his only reason for participating was to try to save lives.
 
Jamesrus

[P.A. Myers]

  Teamnelson, made an important comment:  "..... it all has ensured the real issues are forgotten."  . 

The ink was still wet on the Constitution when it began to be ignored. Now it is almost entirely irrelevant. The Federals freed the slaves, but now will enslave everybody else.

   P.A.