Slavery or States Rights- The Causes of the Civil War

[tidewaterboy1]

There seems to be some confusion of the parties- @scienceatheism The modern Democratic and Republican parties have completely switched. In the 1800's, the Democratic Party was conservative, for states' rights, small government, etc. Now that is the Republican Party. Today, Lincoln would be a super-liberal Democrat.

[swatson999]

The positive part of 600,000 lives lost?????

Do tell.

[UnionStatesHeritage]

@swatson999  4 million slaves freed.

[tidewaterboy1]

@whiteguy212006 you are exactly right. That's what Yankees don't seem to understand- we didn't want a NATIONAL government!

[swatson999]

@tidewaterboy1

[UnionStatesHeritage]

@tidewaterboy1 LOL...Southerners don't seem to understand that outside the issue of slavery, the South was never a fan of states rights, and they used the full force of Federal power, to impose their will on the rest of the nation...right up to the election of 1860. Ever hear of Bleeding Kansas? How 'bout Fugitive Slave Laws? Mexican War ring a bell?

Duh...why do you thing the Republican Party came into existence?

[scienceatheism]

what? most of the slave owners during the 1860's were fucking Democrats dude not Republicans. Republicans were the radicals, they wanted to free slaves, give them equal rights as every other individual in america. Which most people considered that radical. The term Republican and Democrat came from Thomas Jefferson who considered himself a Republican Democrat. Which came about from our nations government a Republic, and through that republic came democracy.

[whiteguy212006]

Individualism and statism, not nationalism. Nationalism is what the Union desired to achieve, to bring together all states and to reinstate federalism. Denying Constitutional States' Rights was the goal of the Union.

[odephraimchai]

crap

[KayBeeEee1983]

I think this guy pretty much hit the nail on the head. If you want to know what the south was fighting for, there is a simple and totally unbiased way: Just read the Declarations of the Causes of Secession, the documents the southern politicians wrote themselves. They ALL point to slavery issues as MAJOR causes, but they mention tariffs and states rights to varying degrees. South Carolina ONLY talks about slavery, never tariffs. Mississippi's preamble also ONLY talks about slavery.

[Mpd10206]

Lincoln used the slavery issue to create a world cause for the war. He knew it would keep Britain and France out if it remained an issue. There were a number of northern states that still had slavery when the war started. Lincoln used slavery as his right to wage war as Bush used the wmd argument to go into Iraq. Both presidents were liars and deceived the public. The slaves would have been back in Africa in ten years anyway because they would have been no longer needed.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@Mpd10206 "Lincoln used slavery as his right to wage war as Bush used the wmd argument to go into Iraq."

That's incorrect. Lincoln used the attack on the "Star of the West" and the bombardment of Fort Sumter as cause to wage war. Fort Sumter was completely owned, operated and maintained by the US federal government. South Carolina sold the land to the federal government 30 years before, did not contribute $1 dollar to help build the fort, and South Carolina had no right to take it by force.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@Mpd10206 "The slaves would have been back in Africa in ten years anyway because they would have been no longer needed."

What on earth makes you think the slaves would've been no longer needed? The mechanical cotton picker wasn't invented until the 1890s, and even then it wasn't very effective. Mechanical cotton pickers didn't come into wide use until the first decade of the 1900s.

[Mpd10206]

The war was fought over Southern independence, not over slavery. Lincoln said repeatedly the war was not being fought over slavery. In August 1862, over a year after the war started, Lincoln wrote an open letter to a prominent Republican abolitionist, Horace Greeley, in which he said he did not agree with those who would only “save” the Union if they could destroy slavery at the same time.

[killerTjunior]

The war was not about slavery and every on who thinks so should go to google right now and type in Union Slave States. You will be surprised to find that there were indeed 5 northern states throughout the entire war in which slavery was allowed

[AgrivatedKillah]

@killerTjunior  Who cares.

It was definitely wrong.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@killerTjunior "not about slavery and every on who thinks so should go to google right now and type in Union Slave States. You will be surprised to find that there were indeed 5 northern states throughout the entire war in which slavery was allowed"

Go read South Carolina's & Mississippi's Declarations of the Causes of Secession. You will be surprised to find that slavery (specifically, Lincoln's opposition to slavery in the territories) was pretty much the ONLY reason those 2 states seceded.

[Charonveritas]

@KayBeeEee1983 You continue to spread lies, and rumors I see everywhere you go. The ONLY reason those 2 states seceeded? What abut the Tariff of 1828? The extortion the North perpetrated against the aggrarian South? Saul Alinsky, and Cloward-Piven don't have anything on you...

[KayBeeEee1983]

@Charonveritas "What abut the Tariff of 1828?"

Do you know what year the Civil War started?

Why don't you read the Declarations of Causes of Secession like I keep telling you? Start with South Carolina and Mississippi. They never mention taxes or tariffs. All slavery.

[Charonveritas]

@KayBeeEee1983 You're an IDIOT. That Tariff was a "causative factor" in tension, and unrest between North and South. The South didn't wake up one morning and say "hey, let's seceed for slavery's sake"... Unlike you, I have studied The War for States Rights formally.

Jeez, you're dumb...

[KayBeeEee1983]

@Charonveritas Of course it was a cause of tension, idiot, but it wasn't a cause of secession. Why don't you do some research on the Tariff of 1857. I'll help you get started. He's a line from the wikipedia article:

"The Tariff of 1857 was a major tax reduction in the United States, creating a mid-century lowpoint for tariffs. It amended the Walker Tariff of 1846 by lowering rates to around 17% on average."

Get your head out of the sand and stop listening to neo-confederate revisionists.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@Charonveritas Read the Declarations of the Causes of Secession you stupid asshole.

Do you know how many times "slave" is mentioned in the Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi Declarations of the Causes of Secession? 81

Do you know how many times "tariff" is mentioned? 0

Do you know how many times "tax" is mentioned? 1, and, ironically, it's in conjunction with the 3/5 compromise.

I kind of hope you haven't studied this stuff formally, because if you did, it was a waste of money....

[Charonveritas]

@KayBeeEee1983 You're a stupid asshole? Really? Everytime you argue some idiotic point, while refusing to examine FACTS in historical context, you prove you don't know what you're talking about.

I've read all the items you've discussed, and far more. Do you ever get tired of self-flagellation? The way you doggedly stick to a single fallacious point makes we worry about you...

I'm gonna get you a condom. That way you can have protection when you go fuck yourself.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@Charonveritas Are you ever going to post something relevant? Everything you post is proof you don't know what you're talking about.

What you call historical "context" is, in fact, historical revisionism. You and other neo-confederates cite the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 as causes of secession, 30 YEARS before the civil war, but you're totally ignorant of the tariff of 1857.

All of your arguments are basically, "I'm smart, your dumb". You can't refute anything I say, so you just use insults.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@Charonveritas And your insults aren't even good. Why would I need a condom to fuck myself?

[Charonveritas]

@KayBeeEee1983 You're so sad...

[KayBeeEee1983]

@Charonveritas Your attempt to sound educated is sad...

[rtgoodson]

This man's argument is pathetic. Moving on...

[johnsammyanfal]

Pay attention to the absurdity of your intellectually illiterate argument – if men do everything for prestige, profit and pussy, then we can only suppose that abolitionists fought for exactly the same subterranean reasons. Considering the widespread looting and rape by invading Northern armies you might actually have a point. Although, I would suggest that your allusion to the Oedipus complex says far more about your personal habits.

[johnsammyanfal]

So slavery was about pussy? Only an uncouth social inadequate could possibly think that the only way to get a woman to sleep with him is to first make her first his slave. In fact the incident of miscegenation was amazingly low. White ancestors are the exception not the rule in many black families. And as for profits, there were always alternatives to making a fast buck as most Northerners could point out.

[MathTruthTax]

John pay attention. Men do everythign for power, prestige, and pussy. Got that? Don't believe me -- ask Sigmund Frued or Desmond Morris or Charles Darwin. That includes how they dress, how they speak, what they do all day.

Do you fucking think slavery would be an exception? Fuck no.

The slave owners got the POWER, PRESTIGE and PUSSY (white and black) in that culture, by owning more slaves.

[MathTruthTax]

John dumb fuck - tell me the alternative to getting power, prestige, and pussy in the South. Pretty much the ENTIRE social fabric -- and economic - was slave based idiot. Slavery was choking the shit out of the South -- increasingly you had very rich, slave owners, a class of elites and their families, who controlled virtuallly everything, and very poor whites. You coudlnt fucking make a living in the South without catering to the slave trade somehow.

[johnsammyanfal]

Slavery was supported in the South because it became increasingly the basis of its social quasi-feudal order. There was never a ‘God of slavery’ - the Confederacy was never a theocracy and all its leaders were all secular statesmen. If anything the crusading syndrome was more pronounced amongst the northern abolitionists. Both Catholic and Protestant representatives supported slavery because the New and Old Testaments condone it; as the prevalent form of economy in antiquity.

[MathTruthTax]

John yes there was a God of slavery idiot.  This is the God Lee spoke about -- Lee spoke about - Yancey spoke about - Stephens spoke about, At length, over and over. In letters, speeches books. The God that THEY said told them to enslave others.

And no dumb fuck -- the Confederacy was the FIRST NATION on earth to be literally FOUNDED on slavery. Read their own leaders bragging about it. Then get back to me.

[IowaSea]

Goth -- slavery was about power, prestige, and pussy. The Slave owners - the ruling class in the South who controlled virtually 100% of the political power -- got power, prestige, and pussy from owning slaves. Of COURSE they thought that was best - men decide what is right, wrong, real, unreal, by what gives them power, prestige and pussy. Slavery was no exception

[IowaSea]

The South ( at least the Rulers of the South - slavers) hated states rights. They detested it. They sent many thousands of thugs to Kanasas to try to destroy that state's right to EXCLUDE slavery ---- when finally a real vote was taken in KS, 98% of the people voted AGAINST slavery. Still the South screamed bloody murder against KS right to exlude slavery This is just ONE of many examples of the South detesting states rights/

[statesrights01]

Many forget about the W. in all this, those who were Democrat belived in a State system type of gov. Those who where Old Wig, or Republican belived in a Fed. style gov. The feds didn't want any "slave" states out W. cause of the seats in the senate, if they could control that. Then the S. would be at an unfair advantage. After all, what kind of gov. would want it's ppl thinking the States were to run there own affairs?

[johnsammyanfal]

Visions of further expansion of slavery into the Southern Hemisphere, in a new victorious Confederacy were just empires of the mind, compensating for a painful sense of isolation.

[johnsammyanfal]

It was not just a matter of adjusting to a racially segregated wage labour market. This of course did happen after Reconstruction; and became further institutionalised by Jim Crow. And Plantations continued to make money. But in the end you have lost ultimate control and the avenging angel of fate has been let loose. I think that is how they in truth saw it.

[johnsammyanfal]

But peel away the surface and what you really see is fear. What Abolition really presented was the prospect of social annihilation. Indeed, this colonial spectre is still visible in white racism today.

[johnsammyanfal]

Hubris comes before the fall? Im not sure whether that really explains the psychology of the elites of the antebellum period. Certainly there were a lot of peacock displays in the early speeches that shored in succession; and the myth still survives of accented high minded certainty embedded in the Southern manner.

[johnsammyanfal]

Slavery was certainly the effective cause of the Civil War. The irony is that the Southern slave based economy would not in any case have survived the cotton spike of the 1860s and would imploded for economic reasons. No mass slave economy survived into the 20th century.

[IowaSea]

@johnsammyanfal dumb fuck -- slavery didn't survive because Lincoln kicked it's fucking ass --and kicked it's God to death. The God thing was very important.

Did you notice before CW, every Southern leader screamed that GOD ordained slavery - every fucking one. After the CW, no Southern leader said that shit. NONE. Why? Because LIncoln kicked that fucking God to death, totally discrediting it. Thats why slavery died -- the GOD of slavery was killed.

[beingforitse1f]

There is no question that the Civil War was fought over States' Rights - specifically, the Southern States' right to own black people as slaves.

[803honda]

The last state with legal slavery was new jersey. It was also legal in Maryland, deleware and west varginia. The emancipation proclimation didnt apply to these places.  It only applied to western territories and "sites of rebellion". If the north was really fighting to end slavery why did they still allow it at home?

[edavismookie25]

Slavery was allowed at home (Northern States) but was seldom if ever after 1860 practiced. Any more questions? Remember the proclamation was to end slavery where it were it "ACTUALLY EXISTED AND WAS PRACTICED". It was no longer practiced in NJ even though it was "on the books" so to speak. MD and DE were border states and were "allowed" keep the slaves thereby keeping them to stay in the Union. WV had just broken away in 1863 so before then she was part Virginia which was in a state of rebellion

[803honda]

lies.

[dave777blaster]

I am a Canadian I neither idolize the south or the North I take no sides nor habor any agenda.

Slavery nerver existed in Canada and was abolished by England long before America gave it up.

there were many religious zealots who

rode with John Brown and died in the name of freedom for the slaves

you won't read that in an American history lesson at any level of education.

[edavismookie25]

Not true. I have.

[dave777blaster]

Even today the european elites suck the life blood out of America by way of the British banking system

The FED

in 1864 it's predecessor was established

in America .

Imagine today if Canadians started attacking southern states and the the federal govt did nothing to stop them and instead allowed them and backed them?

would the southern states not rebel?

The glorious history of the US is written by

apoligists and the Professors who teach it, are programed.

[dave777blaster]

Slavery was abolished to impede the south's ability to fight the war.

The Feds under rule of a new party the Republicans were tyranical and wanted states rights gone to apease their masters the British Who wanted the British banking system in America John Brown and the religious zealots many if not most Canadians were the ones concerned with slavery

Apoligists write us History

The Republicans and Lincoln stole J Brown's legacy .

[dave777blaster]

It was the States rights that was the real reason for the war.

The states lost their rights after the war

Lincoln did not care and never ever cared if Blacks were freed or not.

The demand for the end of Slavery was an effort to hurt the south's ability to wage war.

John Brown and a band of religious Candians and Americans were the ones who fought to abolish Slavery.

The apologists stole John Brown's song and his ideals . Making for some real fancy fairy tales in American history books

[beingforitse1f]

"The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery" - Alabama Secession Speech.

All other documents of secession (Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, etc.) similarly mention preservation of slavery as the prime motivation for secession.

[dave777blaster]

slavery wasn't an Issue untill 2 years into the war when the North abolished it in the south to impede the south's war efforts

The war was started because the North wanted States rights and they got States rights didn't they.

and they stole J Brown's song and legacy didn't they

Apoligists write American history

and the professors preach the gospel

of BS

[beingforitse1f]

So you believe that every single Southern document of secession is lying when they proclaim preservation of slavery to be their primary motivation for seceding?

[dave777blaster]

The statements were made after the war had really started.

The war really started when the Canadians and British zealots started attacking Sounthern towns in an attempt to free the slaves.

this is refered to as the lead up to the war

in American history but in actual fact it was the begining of hostilities

the North did not stop the zealots nor did they wish to stop them

for the intent was to attack the constitution and remove states rights

so that British banking could be installed

[edavismookie25]

The statements may have been made after the war really started but the thoughts, actions, and words of the southern states PROVE that the war was over preserving slavery. You see back then they had no shame in saying what they thought, believed, and felt and certainly did not try to sugar coat what they meant. The war was over the right to own another human being.

[IowaSea]

CW was not fought to preserve or end slavery The South was trying to SPREAD slavery. Got that retards? If you don't grasp that, you don't know shit. During this fight to SPREAD slavery, the South got it's ass kicked, lost it's God of slavery, lost their Nazi like country, and lost slavery. It was all about the SPREAD of slavery, and how that was stopped, ended slavery too

[edavismookie25]

Exactly, the Civil war was fought over slavery pure and simple.

[ItchMyFoot]

Slavery was the cause of the Civil War -- according to the Southern leaders at the time. Davis and Stephens, for example (P and VP of Confederacy) both said slavery was the cause of secession.

IN fact - Stephens called slavery the "foundation" and "great moral truth" of the new nation. They would lead all "of civilized world" into enslaving the black race.

That was widly popular at the time. Later -- the South tried to cover that part up.

[treenfloyd]

That is inaccurate, nothing of the sort was ever said by Davis and Stephens.

[NWOKILLER09]

This guy is full of shit

[FarceTax]

Lincoln didnt start the war for any reason - he didnt fucking start it. The macho duck slave rapers started it - Lincoln ended it.

You morons who idolize the south should learn what the fuck was going on there. No freedom of speech -- you could be hung for having the wrong book in your house. The only rich were the slave owners, most other people were horribly poor.

There was no freedom of press. It was a lot like Hitler's Nazi Germany.

Lincoln freed the south from itself.

[12FlyMe]

kayus dumb ass -- Lincoln could only free the slaves by proclamation in states he controlled by righ to martial law.

He did the 13th Amendment, dumb fuck, for all slaves. Lincoln personally got 13th Amendment on GOP platform in 64, and he PERSONALLY got 13th Amendment unstuck in the US House.

SO learn some fucking history, not your bullshit crap.

[treenfloyd]

You should read the emancipation proclamation, you might be surprised. Slavery was not made an issue until two years after the war started. Research for your own benefit at a library and figure out which state was the last to end slavery. This is "fucking history, not your bullshit crap".

[kayaus2]

more revisionist teaching if slavery was the cause why was most slave owners in the union states? and why did the emancipation only aply to states and territories not occupied by the union? lincoln nevr freed anyone but set in motion a government that today is moving us into a socialist rule

[tpajason]

FarceTax, if Americans have this thought process today, I fear for our country. Read a book about the history of America pre-20th century. You'll realize you spout Yankee lies from liberal books hell bent on making you think what they want you to think.

[12FlyMe]

religion was the ONLY excuse ever given by the scum sucking pigs in the south, to justify slavery.

States rights was the ONLY excuse to keep slavery.

Excuses and reasons are different. The excuse was religion to start slavery, and states rights to keep it.

But the REASON, the real reason for slavery, was pussy and power. Power prestige and free pussy were the reason for slavery. Now wonder southern scum loved slavery so much - thats how they got power prestige and pussy

[LateKnight347]

the religous ppl were the only ones tring to free the slaves besides the slaves. the nonreligous masses didnt give a shit.

[12FlyMe]

Late -- religious people in the south did NOTHING for the slaves, for over 100 years. Not one sermon, not one newspaper article, nothing. In fact, most slave owners praised jesus while they raped their slaves, and sold their own children into slavery from those rapes.

In the NORTH religious people were generally against slavery, some of them violently so.

[LateKnight347]

ok thats right..

[JamieFunkhouser]

this is a yankee professor teaching from a yankee history book. he should pic up the books and letters of confederate soldiers and see what thay say they were fighting for. ur not gonna lie to ur love ones in a letter from the lines of why u fight.

[FarceTax]

If you idolize the south before the Civil War - you are a fucking idiot.

In fact, there was a movement in the South to enslave poor whites too.

Dred Scott decision meant all states would have to allow slavery. The South were a bunch of fucking crybaby slave rapers.

The south started the war -- Linconl ended it. You idiots in the south should thank him -- you would be slaves yourself today, if slavery was allowed to continue.

Fucking morons.

[JamieFunkhouser]

actualy lincoln started the war by secretly sending troops to flroida and asking states to bring up troopt to invade there own states. that was the act of war. the attact on ft sumpter was done after union troops did not leave the fort in confederate terratory

[FarceTax]

Forget who fired the first shot/

Southern culture was as vile as anything Hitler dreamed up. There was no freedom of speech - even for whites. You could be hung if you had the wrong book in your house.

Slave rape -- selling your own child from the rapes -- was common. Takes a special kind of scum to sell your own child into slavery -- southerners did it while praising Jesus.

Lincoln saved the South from a Nazi type existance.

[batttman]

borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrri­ng

[68W2M072]

of course, your number of 600,000 is also evidence of your informed statements - the population of the united states was closer to 30,000,000 at the start of the civil war... but thanks for playing.

The reversal of the dred scott decision, and the statements by the politicians and people over the issue alone refutes your statement that "in the mid 19th century, virtually no whites, North or South entertained the possibility of blacks ever being "equal" to whites."

Study more.

[Graymalkin2001]

Harsh Reality:

In the mid 19th century, virtually no whites, North or South, entertained the possibility of blacks ever being "equal" to whites. The "Great Emancipator" Lincoln himself clearly voiced his views on whites being "supreme" in the Douglas-Lincoln debates.

Yet, we are to believe that 600,000 white men, North and South, 95% of whom had no interest in slavery, were willing to give their lives over "the negro"?

Romantic, whether blue of gray; but an utterly idiotic concept.

[someone060288]

The South was fighting to defend slavery(The Declaration of Causes of Secession of Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Georgia are evidence of this). The average Southerner would have defended the concept of slavery even if they themselves did not own slaves. The North was fighting to preserve the Union.

[68W2M072]

youtubers reinventing history again. Lincoln said "slave power" was threatening the ideals of america and freedom. Read the Peoria Speach where he spoke vehemently against slavery and slavers. If 95% of people had no interest in slavery, why the protests against slavery by thousands of white abolitionists. Why the hundreds of thousands massachuset and delaware men signing petitions for abolition? why the contest over dred scott by millions of constituents?

[Graymalkin2001]

James McPherson is quite probably the most biased, subjective "historian" living today. His analysis is based upon an extremely narrow viewpoint, and from a late-twentieth-century perspective of the mid ninteenth century.

The right of secession was supported by the Declaration of Independence, and even by Lincoln on 1/12/1848. Lincoln's invasion of the South to force the states back into a Union they voluntarily joined - and could voluntarily leave - was criminal. And absolutely tyrannical.

[someone060288]

Right...his many years of study on this issue, and the devotion of his career to the study of history, pales in comparison to your vast wisdom.

[ufgt1989]

McPherson is undoubtedly a Civil War scholar of the highest order, but that fact does not make him immune to dissenting criticism. McPherson's views on Civil War causation are extremely narrow--only accounting for slavery as the root cause of the outbreak of hostilities.

[someone060288]

What would be the "root cause" then if slavery wasn't? Southern leaders lead the federal government on up til the time of the Civil War. Nine out of the first twelve presidents were from southern states, seven of which were from Virginia. Presidents like James Buchanan who were not born in a southern state (Penn) followed pro-southern policies such as backing the Lecompton Constitution of Kansas. So to say that the South was being misrepresented would be false.

[someone060288]

States rights was only a major issue because of slavery. The constitution said nothing directly concerning slavery save the 3/5 compromise, so that left the question up to the states in theory. Most northern states had abolished slavery by the beginning of the nineteenth century, but southern states were solidifying the institution by pushing for slavery in the territories and by advocating the fugitive slave law. Southern politicians such as John C. Calhoun promoted it fervently.

[someone060288]

The Supreme Court defended slavery. The pro-southern Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert B. Taney who held that post from 1836 until he died in 1864 made a number of pro-slavery decisions, such as Prigg vs. Pennsylvania and Dred Scott vs. Sandford. My point is that slavery is the root cause of the Civil War. Slavery was at the heart of the southern states rights argument. Had slavery not existed the states rights debate would not have been divisive enough to spawn a civil war.

[68W2M072]

the only other argument against secession besides states rights issues rooted with slavery, was the states rights issue of tarifs. This issue was the nullification crisis, in which the entire country was prospering except SC. The president reduced tariffs to help, but not enough and not fast enough for SC. Without exception, all southern states were against SC's actions, viewing them as unconstitutional and foolish... but ten years later they use the event as ammo for secession.

[Graymalkin2001]

And you apparently believe that "many years of study" and being a "historian" frees one from a biased standpoint? Such study makes one objective? Surely you aren't that ignorant. Ah, but a good number of people ARE that ignorant.

Though it troubles you, McPherson has an extremely narrow view of the WBTS, and no doubt endorses ONLY such historical facts that support his views.

Obviously this all-too-common narrow-minded subjectivity pleases you.

Simplistic "history" for simplistic minds.

[68W2M072]

INVASION!!! More historical revisionalism by youtubers. The southern states seceded... then attacked the union, regardless of whether the union was going to preserve the union or not, the south fired first, and deserve no sympathy for their warmongering.

[Graymalkin2001]

Odd how the first shot in 1775 symbolizing the Colonists' rebellion against tyranny is lauded, but the "first shot" at Sumter has become infamous.

Lincoln spoke of "Any people, anywhere" having the right to secede. The South sought legal, peaceful secession. Lincoln would not allow this. Lincoln is the only man who could have averted war. Yet, he intentionally sent gunboats to Sumter, knowing it would incite Southern hostility, and blame could them be laid upon the South, and justify invasion.

[MarkDouglasC]

States rights was just an excuse, a piece of bullshit that southern slavery apologist today use, as if anyone is motivated by states rights. States rights is a figment in your head. Slavery was real - real slave women being raped, real slave children from those rapes being sold, real slaves being worked to death, whipped, traded, sold. Who cares if Lincoln said blacks werent equal socially -- that meant he didnt want to marry a black woman. Lincoln's actions showed what he was about - freedom.

[Momto5dogs]

Southern states had more blacks than whites due to slavery. According to Constitution blacks were only counted 3 for every 5. Representatives were based on counted population in censuses. Therefore Southern states were not equally represented because a portion of their population were not counted. Having fewer counted pesons meant fewer Reps and less power in Congress. Tariffs were passed that targeted & penalized the South to the enrichment of the North. Taxation without representation.

[someone060288]

It is true that the Norths population was nearly always higher than the Souths population.However if the 3/5 rule was not in place,and if slaves would have been counted fully,it still would have given the North a majority in the House of Reps. However for the first half of US political history,it was the South that levied more political power. This is evident simply by taking a look at the first 15 presidents. 8 of them were southern, 7 of which came from Virginia.

[someone060288]

Most of the presidents who were not southern, such as James Buchanan, were southern sympathisers, or at least wanted to keep the south appeased. Cotton was "king" after all, which brought in loads of cash for the federal government on top of keeping Britain and other textile producing countries reliant on Southern cotton. As for the tariffs,most of them were either revised or reversed, such as with the nullification crisis of 1832. The tariffs were also imposed to aid the United States economy.

[someone060288]

The South was buying a lot of the same goods from overseas that were being produced in the North. If the tariffs were implemented, then that would give southern farmers more incentive to buy the goods produced in the North. Thus would create a balanced economy. The South farms the raw materials, the North takes the raw materials and makes them into products. Both sections buy the produced goods. This does not solely benefit one section of the country. I do disagree with the tariff however.

[someone060288]

I think it undermines the principals of a capitalistic economy. Sorry for the long response, I could not get all that on one post lol.

[Momto5dogs]

You make an interesting point and, yet, somehow Congress managed to pass tariffs that punished the South alone so if the South's political machine had the power you suggest, those tariffs wouldn't have passed. But you are correct about the Southern Presidents.

[68W2M072]

the tariffs you speak of applied and affected NE also. So these tariffs were not southern focused, but intended to protect US business, as ALL tariffs since the beginning of time (capitalist or not) are intended. the tariffs were reduced in 1832, but not enough for SC, which is were the misconception that these tariffs were targeted to the south.

So... no... the tariffs did not punish the south alone.

[galoon]

In 1860 the South had 5 mil. whites and 4 mil. blacks. The 3/5 Compromise actually benefitted the South, as it allowed slaves to be counted, even though slaves weren't exactly constituents--they were considered property by their owners. The tariffs didn't exactly enrich the North or the Federal Gov't, which had only $200,000 in the coffers at the start of the war. Tariffs were unequal to the South, since it bought foreign goods, but it can't really be called taxation without representation.

[Ocracoke23]

I suppose that you must also take away freedom to preserve it. Suspending the habeas corpus, sending troops to occupy Union states that allowed slavery, and removing local political leaders by force and imprisoning them sounds a lot like freedom to me. "If I could save the union without freeing any slave I would, if I could by freeing all the slaves I would, and if I could save it by freeing some and not others, I would do it." Abraham Lincoln, August 1862

[MarkDouglasC]

Damn this guy is smart. Wish I had said that.

Of course slavery was the main cause of the civil war. Slavery issue permeated everything ....slavery was the oxygen in the political air. As most of the North and the world condemded slavery, the south reacted by increasingly insisting slavery was from God Almighty. Slavery was the social status symbol in the south -- and you couldn't even debate slavery in the south. You could be hung for having anti slavery written material.

[Momto5dogs]

U.S. Constitution,Article I,Section 2 "Representatives & direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states..., according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, & excluding Indians not taxed, 3/5ths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the 1st meeting of the Congress of the US, & within every subsequent term of ten years"

[shanebarrow1]

Slavery and the fight over it caused bloodshed way before the CIvil WAR. SO to say it wasn't about slavery is to ignore this fact. ALso if you read the letters of Union and COnfederate soldiers written during the war, its clear they knew exactly what the war was over: SLavery. Slavery was vital to slave holder and non slave-holder alike. The White south's worst nightmare was a free black man. YOu didnt have to own a slave to fear a slave revolt. THey fear a social earthquake.

[shanebarrow1]

The civil war was entirely over Slavery. The "States rights" theory just doesn't hold up for the simple fact that if slavery is removed from the picture there would of never been a Ciil war. Period. Also the "states rights" theory is a distortion of history better known as facts. It was shown way before the CIVIL WAR that debate about slaver could lead to bloodshed. THe nat Turner REbellion, THe DEnmark vescey plat, THE JOHN BRown raid in 1859 and of course the Kansas Border wars.

[Momto5dogs]

Let me recommend a novel that addresses the states rights issue in modern times without the issue of slavery clouding the issue. It's A Single Star by Stan Barnett (2003 and read on the PBS radio station). He took an issue that we faced in SC not so long ago when the U.S. wanted to transport nuclear waste into our state for storage. Former Governor Jim Hodges tried to stand up to the Federal govt and even had state law enforcement ready to physically stop the transport but he backed down.