States Rights vs. Slavery

[22rimfan]

Hello all.  Please forgive me if this has been beaten to death, but I wanted to get everyone's opinions on this topic.  Two years ago I took a course at Lee University, in Cleveland TN on the War of Northern Aggression.  The professor taught us that the war was fought becasue of Slavery.  Rather interesting couple of days while we debated that topic.  Any ways to the point of this post...

I went by my professor's office, and we reopened this debate.  I told her that slavery was a State's Right and that thus with this in mind the War was fought over State's Rights.  She countered with the Missouri Compromise.  I told her that that was all well and good, but it was just a measure for the politicians in D.C. to keep a "level" playing field by balancing out the slave and free states.  She kept pulling James McPherson, who's book I hope to never see again! (it was required reading), Lincoln's speeches, and other sources for her argument.  I countered her as best I could with Shelby Foote and Jefferson Davis (Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Vol I and II).  

After leaving her office, I still feel as though it was a State's Right to choose to be slave or free and thus State's Rights was the real cause of the war.  I am just wondering what you all believe.
Aaron

[Shorty]

22rimfan,
But then, if the states rights argument is based on the right to slavery, slavery still trumps as the primary cause. :?

[ironfoot]

Yes, this has been beaten to death.
( I see it the same way Shorty does.)

[DWTim]

It was a states' rights issue. It was economics, since slave labor was apparently the backbone of Southern industry. The Rebs set the terms by seceding, and taking military action first. I would think that this would indicate the Confederacy as the sole authority on the topic of the causes of the Civil War.

Black slavery was incidental, but nothing gets Americans riled up like money problems. Was the Revolutionary War fought over slavery? How about the Whiskey Rebellion? Do you believe that Washington's actions during the Whiskey Rebellion were illegal?

[ironfoot]

"States rights" was code for "slavery" and later became code for "segregation".

Quote: "...the Confederacy as the sole authority on the topic of the causes of the Civil War."

Well then, you can read what the seceding states said was their reasons for secession here:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

They list various issues, but the primary concern is that the North managed to get an anti-slavery candidate elected President, and the South wanted to ensure it's ability to continue with slavery.

[victorcharlie]

To say slavery was the issue is a gross over simplification of the causes that brought forth the war of northern aggression.

Slavery was certainly an issue, but the willingness of Hamilton and his big federal government cronies started the secession movement not much after the ink was dry on the constitution.

A republican controlled congress and the tarriffs that they passed made for what I deem to be the main cause of sucession.  It was all about money, and forcing states to comply for profit in violation of the 10th ammendment.

Segregation was a result of policies put in place by the federal government during radical reconstruction.

My great, great, great grandfather owned slaves in Virginia.  The 1870 and 1880 census shows my great, great grandfather in the same house hold with a black family, and very much "interegrated".  This was before the policy to punish the south was put into place.

Think about it......court house is burned and there are no records of property ownership.  Down comes the yankee slicker with a fake deed......40 acres and a mule to anyone who votes for my boy........

Segregation was a result of policy set by the north to punish the south.

To the victor goes the spoils, but history has many tails.  This was a very complicated situation which brought about this war.  To blame one thing such as slavery is simply not correct.

[ironfoot]

Here we go again.
victorcharlie...did you read the declararations of causes of secession? The seceding states were concerned about slavery, preserving and expanding it. What tariffs did President Lincoln enact that led to secession? It was when Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery platform that the south seceded. Read prior posts. This has all been discussed here at great length.

[victorcharlie]

Here we go again.
victorcharlie...did you read the declararations of causes of secession? The seceding states were concerned about slavery, preserving and expanding it. What tariffs did President Lincoln enact that led to secession? It was when Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery platform that the south seceded. Read prior posts. This has all been discussed here at great length.

Yes, I read South Carolina's declaration......clearly they mention slavery as a reason for secession.  No doubt about that......

as for tariffs.....

Well, lets start with the tariffs of 1816,1828 and 1832.......

http://www.tax.org/Museum/1816-1860.htm

I'm not saying slavery wasn't an issue.......but to blame the war on one issue is gross over simplification.  No doubt cotton farming relied on slavery....as did tobacco farming........no doubt there was a huge economic reliance on slavery........

If I may be allowed to over simplify.........The war was really over whether we would remain an agricutural based economy......or an industrial based economy.....

But....your right......the cause of the war has been debated for at least 5 generations........but.......looking at the out of control fasist federal government in its present form............the wrong side won.........

[missouri dave]

Pick yourself up a copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods Jr and tell her to shove it up her carpetbagger butt!

[ironfoot]

"...as for tariffs.....
Well, lets start with the tariffs of 1816,1828 and 1832......."

Response: None of those caused the Civil War, which did not start until 1860. The Southern state secession began when Northerner Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery Republican platform.

http://www.washtimes.com/civilwar/20030822-085758-4689r.htm

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/repub.html

[Ruskin]

A friend did a paper on the changes that were starting to take place, and he implied with the advent of the tractor and other equipment that eventually followed the slavery issue would have died due to the use of technology.

[Bush Master]

Lincoln is Ironfoot's hero, you are not going to get anywhere discussing the murderous war of northern aggression with him.

[flintlock]

Ruskin...Technology would not have replaced all hand labor...we have had migrant workers (Mexicans) working here in NC for at least 40 years....Technology still won't pick cucumbers, green beans, cantalopes, watermelons, tomatoes....etc....We do have tobacco harvesters, corn/wheat/soybean combines, peanut pickers, etc....But there are still many vegatables picked by hand.....

[S.S.]

When one looks at how few Southerners actually owned slaves
the arguement kind of goes out the window to me?
Not saying there were not a lot of slave owners, but over all population wise
it was a small percentage. Many northerners owned slaves also.
Oh, they were not called slaves though ! House servants, Field hands,
things like that. Yes, they even used a form of slavery called Indentured servantship.
They would pay for the boat ride for poor europeans to travel to this country.
Then work them half to death for repayment of the debt. Most of the time for years!

[southernpride]

It was states rights.  The Confederate states had the right to secede from the Union.  The union did not see eye to eye on this issue.  For the average Confederate soldier enlisting was a form of self-defense.  A great army was going to come down South, destroying all that they had.  So they enslisted to protect their homes.  This was odviously states rights.  I have also had debates with teachers on this issue.  As for Lincoln my reply would be edited out if I said anything.

[Telahnay's g'son]

"It" WAS all about slavery or rather the slaves themselves.

For you see in 1860 the slaves were the largest single economic asset in the USA outside of the land itself.  More valuable than all of the economic assets in the north combined.

Therefore, the north HAD to get rid of slavery in order to destroy the economic power base of the agrarian south and consolidate the Empire Building M.O. so desired by the so-called "Captains of Industry" running things north of the M/D line.  That's why Lincoln finally had to provoke the hostilities by sending a military force to South Carolina and threaten the sovereignty of that state.

Abe Lincoln was no friend of the slave as he expressed in several instances prior to the Emancipation Proclaimation (BTW it didn't free ALL of the slaves) which was strictly a gesture to foster slave revolts in the Confederacy.  Imagine his consternation when that failed to materialize in any significant manner.  Also, guess who authored the idea of sending them (slaves) back to Africa via the newly created state of Liberia?

Most of my black friends are very much cognizant of the fact a Yankee is no real friend of theirs as many are keenly aware of when (1862) and where (NYC) the first race riot occurred wherein ~100 of their kin were murdered by rampaging whites.

[ironfoot]

Lincoln is Ironfoot's hero, you are not going to get anywhere discussing the murderous war of northern aggression with him.

Lincoln is my hero. He withstood the Rebellion To Preserve Slavery, and saved the Union. Too bad he died at the hand of a southern assassin who wanted to preserve slavery.

"On 9th April, 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox. Two days later Booth attended a public meeting in Washington where he heard Abraham Lincoln make a speech where he explained his views that voting rights should be granted to some African Americans. Booth was furious and decided to assassinate the president before he could carry out these plans."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWbooth.htm

[PA-Joe]

Do the states have a right to ban gun ownership? There are certain rights that states cannot regulate or control. Resticting Gun Ownership and Enslaving someone are two rights they do not have!

[Telahnay's g'son]

Lincoln is Ironfoot's hero, you are not going to get anywhere discussing the murderous war of northern aggression with him.

Lincoln is my hero. He withstood the Rebellion To Preserve Slavery, and saved the Union. Too bad he died at the hand of a southern assassin who wanted to preserve slavery.

The big question is WHY preserve the "Union" as eleven (11) former states (by votes in their legally elected legislatures) had already expressed their desire to leave?  Therefore, in the strict legal sense we appear to have a country with some of it's inhabitants held as "citizens" via military force under a form of perpetual house arrest.  However, as history has shown everyone there was a lot of wealth to be confiscated by greedy northerners ergo, the true reason for the war.

"On 9th April, 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox. Two days later Booth attended a public meeting in Washington where he heard Abraham Lincoln make a speech where he explained his views that voting rights should be granted to some African Americans. Booth was furious and decided to assassinate the president before he could carry out these plans."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWbooth.htm

Perhaps the world would be a much better place if yankees and muslims had their own island?  Sounds like a match made on the river Styx! 

[Telahnay's g'son]

Do the states have a right to ban gun ownership? There are certain rights that states cannot regulate or control. Resticting Gun Ownership and Enslaving someone are two rights they do not have!

In several cases the USSC has upheld the right of states or other political subdivisions to make their own gun control ordnances.

[Ga.windbreak]

With all due respect to everyone here The War for Southern Independence was about Money and the fact that if the Southern states left the union the Tariff's the Feds were collecting would be lost.

Example: "The export of Cotton ALONE from the South in 1859 was valued at $161,434,923.00. The total export of ALL goods from the North in 1859 was a mere $78,217,202.00."  from "The South was Right"
Now you might ask "What does that have to do with anything?" All the shipping came from the New England states and went into Northern ports therefore Federal tariffs on Southern goods while Northern goods shipped FROM Northern ports equaled, you got it, NO tariffs for the Fed's. Now if The South was a seperate country then goods could inter and leave from say NO or Savannah with a much lower tariff the Feds would lose all that business. Lincoln said it best when he said "Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues?"

Was slavery bad, of course it was, and still is. But slavery was on the way out and would have died war or no war. Save the Union, oh please, a union is only a union when all parties willingly agree to it being that way, not when one partner holds a gun to or stabs or beats up the other partner to keep the union together. That's called domestic violence or in this case The war for Southern Independence.

As for as it being a "Civil War" we (the South) did not want to overthrow the U.S.Government we left and started our own so there was NOTHING civil about it. Also if you want to believe the simplistic answer of the South fired the first shot I want you to make sure that if someone ever breaks into your home you wait to shoot after they have already started shooting.

[SHOOTALL]

Lincon didn't mention it until late in the war ! and said later rumor has it  if he could have won ( KEPT ENGLAND and FRANCE from entering on the side of the SOUTH  ) he would not have freed the slaves , GO FIGURE !
Later it was learned that cutting off funds to the states worked better than war , and today we have even fewer rights ,
How does education and speed limits figure in the commerce act ?

[billy_56081]

Who here can tell me why Lincoln gave the Emancipation proclamation on the date he did? What was he trying to overshadow? Being a Minnesota boy I see a memorial to it everyday going into work?

[SHOOTALL]

read above about England and France ! They both wanted /needed raw material from the south ! By that time both had banned slavery , and we thought politics in war was a new thing !

[Ga.windbreak]

Ironfoot has stated the disagreement between the states started the day Lincoln was elected president and his free the slaves/save the Union movement. What tariffs did Lincoln put into law he says? “Right is might”.

Well one thing is almost right, it’s not “Right is Might”, it’s Might is Right”.

A little history, if you will, in the beginning after the Revolution the northern states decided to transfer all war debts to the federal government. Now the only way that the feds had to raise money was thru tariffs and that’s how all of this started. Because more of the war was in the north (NY, Mass, and the other New England states) Those states received more of the federal money back. But the Southern states put more money into the system because of the greater value of their exports. That was the beginning of the legal theft of southern $$. The numerical larger North demanded more of the cut “To provide for the general welfare”.

“In 1833 there was a surplus revenue of many millions in the public treasury which by an act of legislation unparalleled in the history of nations was distributed among the northern states to be used for local public improvement”  George Lunt, author of “Origin of the late war”

President J. Buchanan’s message to congress concerning this “The South had not had her share of money from the treasury, and unjust discrimination had been made against her . . .”

As to slavery, the South had the slaves, and it was wrong. But to say that Lincoln was against slavery is a misuse of the truth. Many times Lincoln stated that he wouldn’t stop slavery in the states where it already was, he wanted no more slave states, and if we are to believe this is true (from ol’ honest Abe) why would we leave the Union? And I must add one more thing about slavery, if you think that there is no slavery in the U.S or other places in the world today you must have your head in the sand. If you buy anything that’s made in China do you really think those people are all over 18 and making a good living? Buy any gas this week? How about the slaves in that part of the world? Sweat shops in places in the U.S. using illegal labor making designer jeans? Happen to buy a car, with parts from wherever? My friend you have just helped to perpetuate slavery. Is it right, NO it surely is not but please lets all be very careful about how we judge others and other times. As Jesus did say “Ye without sin cast the first stone.”   

[missouri dave]

Interestingly enough, when Richmond fell and Lincoln went there, the emancipation proclamation (which freed the slaves ONLY in the states in rebellion) had already been issued. So, there were no slaves in Richmond legally. Except one, that is, the one belonging to Mrs, Lincoln.

[SHOOTALL]

good history lesson !

[steelshooter68]

Very good lesson indeed fellas! Some "real" history rings as clear as a bell but it isn't always "tolled"!We are all slaves to our "big brother"now,don't believe it?,neglect to pay your "property tax" for a while and see what you are allowed to own. Let our commander-in-chief enact some of those wonderful executive orders that he has at his fingertips and find out who you really belong to.Want to get an eye opener? Check into what government agency your birth certificate is registered with.If you don't believe these things started with the destruction of states rights,and Mr.Lincoln then wake up.I do believe this, Lincoln had no intention of things becoming the mess they have become.

[ironfoot]

Lincoln was against slavery long before he ran for President.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates made that clear, as did Lincoln's Coopers Union speech.
He told the South that he would not end slavery were it currently existed 1. because he did not have the right to do so under the Constitution, and 2. because he was trying to placate the South so it would not secede.
Lincoln would not give an inch on his position to stop the expansion of slavery.
That outraged the slave power.
So, when Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery platform, the slave power seceded.

[ironfoot]

Interestingly enough, when Richmond fell and Lincoln went there, the emancipation proclamation (which freed the slaves ONLY in the states in rebellion) had already been issued. So, there were no slaves in Richmond legally. Except one, that is, the one belonging to Mrs, Lincoln.

Lincoln believed that he had no authority, under the Constitution, to unilaterally end slavery.
Similarly, President Bush can not unilaterally outlaw abortion.
But, in a time of war, you can deprive the enemy of it's property.
That was the legal basis for the Emancipation Proclamation.
It had been Lincoln's hope before the Civil War to stop the spread of slavery.
Lincoln thought that if the expansion of slavery could be halted, slavery would wither and die.
The slave owners thought so too, which is why they seceded when Lincoln was elected President.

Now, what evidence do you have that Mrs. Lincoln owned a slave after the Emancipation Proclamation?