Secession! — Page 5

*sigh*

http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-new-jersey-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/RYvjgdDT

I think these should be granted violently.

captainsolo said:

And despite what the history books may say, the Civil War was not all about the slavery issue. There are many, many, many issues that arose between North and South over many decades of ignorance, aggression, competition and economic struggle.

So this:

TheBoost said:

CP3S said:

Warbler said:

I realize it is just a conspiracy theory, but maybe slavery had something to do with it?   And please remember the south did its fair share of killing those on the government side. 

You're right, it was all about slavery. That is why people in the north didn't have any slaves at that time. Makes total sense!

*sigh*

Come on Warb, it is well documented historical fact.

You can pretend America is this fantastic place with the unfortunate exception of these backward southern assholes who used to own slaves and are still crazy racists who would invoke all sorts of racist law and gunship runs of the Mexican border if they had their way all you want, but the fact remains that slavery was nation wide and the Civil War was about maintaining the union. They weren't fighting to the death and risking their lives for their right to own slaves. Plenty of those fighting and dying on the southern side in the Civil War didn't even own slaves. There were even a decent number of former slaves fighting on the southern side. They're were plenty fighting on the northern side who were slave owners. The south was fighting for their freedom to rule themselves; and the north was fighting to maintain the Union.

The Civil War was about slavery. The South wanted out of the union to protect slavery. The wanted freedom to let themselves have slaves.

 Actual Documented historical facts:

Mississippi's Declaration of Sessession: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world . . . [A] blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization . . . There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union …”

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:  We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.” ... an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery. ... In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed ...”

This argues against state rights and for Federal power, claiming that Northern states were ignoring the federal rights of slave owners as identified by Constitution. , specifically the Fugitive Slave Act.

The first thing the Confederate Constitution did was FEDERALLY protect slavery. States in the Confederacy had NO RIGHTS to limit slavery.

The only 'rights' they cared about was the right to own slaves. Other 'causes' of the war were invented by post-war apologists.

Read the original documents.

and this:

TheBoost said:

1990osu said:

Look, it's quite simple:

The north had slave states.  There were riots in New York where northerners killed black people.  The only reason the north didn't have as big a slave industry was because of the weather.  The northerners would have rebelled if they thought that they were all dying to free the slaves.  No, they were fighting to "preserve the union".  And likewise, southerners were not fighting to keep their slaves.  As mentioned, the vast majority of them did not own slaves. 

The Emancipation Proclamation was a great publicity stunt by Lincoln to try to make the war about slavery.  Why?  Because he didn't want Europe to jump in on the southern side, which it was about to do. 

But what did the Emancipation Proclamation actually do?  Nothing!  If Lincoln had really wanted to free slaves why didn't he free the Northern slaves?  Why "free" the southern ones he had no control over? 

It was a great publicity stunt by Lincoln, and ever after it has made a good simplistic "white knight black knight" tale for the history books and public schools- but it just isn't correct. 

The war was not about slavery, but about economics...as most wars are.

Yes it is simple. Wrong.

No. Sorry. Read the texts written by the people fighting the war. 

Pretty much everything you said is wrong. 

The war WAS EXPRESSLY AND CLEARLY ABOUT SLAVERY AS WRITTEN IN THE DECLARATION OF SECESSION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES, AS WELL AS THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION. Did Lincoln write those? 

Feel free to quote Lincoln in the one quote he ever made where he's ambiguous on freeing the slaves (which was a letter to a newspaper in a state he was desperately trying to keep on his side). It's one of his most quoted lines by revisionists. The thousands upon thousands of words he wrote or said strongly against slavery is ok to ignore.

and this:

Tyrphanax said:

1990osu said:

 

Look, it's quite simple:

The north had slave states.  There were riots in New York where northerners killed black people.  The only reason the north didn't have as big a slave industry was because of the weather.  The northerners would have rebelled if they thought that they were all dying to free the slaves.  No, they were fighting to "preserve the union".  And likewise, southerners were not fighting to keep their slaves.  As mentioned, the vast majority of them did not own slaves. 

The Emancipation Proclamation was a great publicity stunt by Lincoln to try to make the war about slavery.  Why?  Because he didn't want Europe to jump in on the southern side, which it was about to do. 

But what did the Emancipation Proclamation actually do?  Nothing!  If Lincoln had really wanted to free slaves why didn't he free the Northern slaves?  Why "free" the southern ones he had no control over? 

It was a great publicity stunt by Lincoln, and ever after it has made a good simplistic "white knight black knight" tale for the history books and public schools- but it just isn't correct. 

The war was not about slavery, but about economics...as most wars are.

 

As a history buff and someone who just last month did a ton of research on the Civil War, I have to put a stop to the misinformation going on here.

The north didn't have as big a slave industry because they had industry that was built upon the industrial revolution: far easier to mass produce with machines than people in any situation. Ergo less need for slavery.

The south had no such infrastructure, as their industry was still, by far and away, agricultural (plantations, slaves, et cetera) and they were having their economy threatened by the fact that slavery was a fast-dying institution due to industrialization, and the trend towards an anti-slavery mindset that was very rapidly growing in the north (and had already been accepted by Europe, further influencing American attitudes, especially considering America was built upon a supposedly-enlightened constitution in which all men are created equal [the issue of slavery up until machines were invented that did the work faster and without rest was conveniently and I would say uncomfortably ignored]); in fact, with the majority of the reasons the south went to war, if you follow them back far enough they lead to the issue of slavery. The south was fighting, in big part, to retain their "institution", that being slavery, plain and simple.

I don't know where you're getting your "facts" about Europe being about to support the CSA, but they are utterly false:

England wanted to remain staunchly neutral as it was also facing plenty of tension in Europe with Napoleon III being around, and not to mention the idea that supporting a rebellion like the CSA could give English holdings ideas about separation. The US was also doing a fine job of not legitimizing the rebellion.

It was also not because of the CSA's cotton production, either, as England was already getting plenty of cotton from Egypt and India at the time, however, England was receiving a large amount of far more vital food shipments from the Union states.

The only time England came close to intervening in the war was during Lee's push north, and then it was not to support the CSA, but to mediate an end to the war (though likely by giving the CSA what it wanted in order to end the war, it was by no means going to support their war effort, and certainly not because they supported the movement), and by the time they were discussing offering to mediate, the Union had defeated the CSA's armies at Antietam (which took place before the Emancipation Proclamation) and forced them back into the south, and at this point, the war was basically over for the CSA, as they just didn't have the manpower anymore to deal with such costly battles.

At the same time, France was officially neutral as well; though they were in the market for southern cotton, there was a lot of internal governmental disagreement about which side to support, and the fact that England was watching them made them no quicker to decide. Again, after Antietam (again, before the Emancipation Proclamation), any question about supporting the CSA was quashed.

I agree that the war was primarily fought by the Union in order to preserve that union, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was not only about freeing the slaves for the sake of freeing the slaves (turning the war into a moral war not only opened up black men for recruiting, but also revived shaky morale and support for the war, and did, indeed, keep outside powers from supporting the CSA, though this was hardly a reality anyway [if you want to know why Lincoln freed only the southern slaves, it was to further illegitimize the southern rebellion as well as to utterly and completely destroy their economy, he didn't have to free them in the north because slavery was already gone or on its way out]) but anybody downplaying slavery as a primary cause is just outright revisionism, and I will not stand for it.

 

is complete false.   can you prove that the history books are wrong?  you got any evidence?    What kind of expertise do you have to matter of factly say that the history books are wrong?   Are the things that were pointed out as being in the declaration of secession of multiple states, not really in those documents?

The world has never been just black and white (though some of it is a bit of both, with some other stuff mixed in).

^Exactly.  I again admit I am somewhat ignorant on the topic, but those who claim it was only this or purely that are oversimplifying the issue--a very human trait that we do with nearly everything.  It is easily explainable by both issues.  A great deal of tension existed between the North and the South.  Much of this revolved around slavery, but it also revolved around the understanding of loyalty to the federal or state governments.  Prior to the Civil War, most citizens' loyalties was greater to their state than their nation.  Considering the tensions, and considering that the South wanted to practice a lifestyle they felt was hindered by the North, they withdrew.  I heard the analogy of being part of a club.  If you found that your interests were not served by the club, you withdraw.  That was seen as acceptable.  Lincoln fought the Civil War to preserve the Union, and opportunely justified to the whole country the evils of slavery and illegalized it completely.

Again, slavery led to secession.  The war was fought to preserve.  With the war came the end of slavery for all states.  And as was pointed out before, it was also an economic issue, because slaves were indeed an important economic commodity, and the end of slavery devastated the Southern economy--imagine the loss of all that free labor, the drastic changes in the trade when a resource became illegal.  I don't mean to demean those of African decent by referring to them as "commodities" and such, but My point is that indeed, to those who saw them as less than human, it was a hard thing to give up.  The War was not just about one thing or another.  It was a complex issue with slavery and unity at the heart of it.

it you want to say there were issues other than slavery that led to the war, fine.   But if you wants to argue that slavery had nothing to do with it until Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation, not fine.    

you get mocked for wanting to secede over slavery.  I assume you would not call that a legitimate grievance. 

yeah,  sorry about that.  I was very very tired when writing my previous post.  I had not read your post carefully enough. 

Omega seamaster...very nice.