Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Neil was quicker than I to thank you. You oughta be a teacher or something.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Hanny,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post.
My point is that a "loyal opposition" or divergent views on slaveowning, and the possible negative effects of slaveownering on the economy and society were not allowed in the deep south and often in the border states. When I say "not allowed" I mean anyone not lockstep with slaveowners faced mob violence.
Your welcome, and i agree that those who felt differently on slavery simply left and went elsewhere, which is in part why the southern states were underpopulated, imigrants did not go there because there was possobility of advnacemt as there was in the North or West etc, many southerners for moral or economic reasons simply left as well, iirc ive seen figure of 200k net loss per decade by interegion white exodus from southern states. veryu likly fora number of reason which could easly fallunder the "we dont fit in" heading.
Quote:
Pro-secessionist votes are unsurprising in a climate where contradicting slaveowners was considered racial treason and a possible incitement for slaves to revolt. Years of uncontradicted propaganda, built anger against the north, for interfering with the South, insulting the South, restricting the South from the western territories.
Again we agree.
Quote:
The South wasn't being insulted, interfered with or restricted. Slavery and slaveowning was.
Some northerners recognized this. Harriet Beecher Stowe made Simon Legree a transplanted Yankee. Other(but not all) Southern whites in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" are protrayed as well intentioned, but caught and forced to act cruelly by the slaveowning system.
I disagree here because under the Constition the citizen hada right to take his property unywhere the Unions laws held, to deny them thios right was pretty bad for not only economic reasons but for political ones as well.
The slave was held for fear is overblown in my opinion, to be sure a large section where held down by fear, but equially a larger section were held to bondage by rewards, that slavery was based on both carrot and stick is often left out by focus on the stick.
Quote:
As far as 19th century American history is concerned, Opn Downfall is right to link secession and slavery. Slavery is not an incident in the long history of secession, secession was the last incident in the long history of slavery.
Again i agree, some 30% of everyones income was derived from slave labour, the effects of slavery went right through all of society, so any threat to it was bound to unite the people in society together. Not being able to do as had happened in history, move the slaves from Marlyland to Ga to take advanatge of economic oportunity, and from there to Miss and from Miss to the west was what had been intended under the NWT and SWT and had largely succeded in huge interegional movement of slaves and owners, threats to end this ment the huge numbers of slave increase could not be exported into new states, but would remain in state causing myriad problems.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
disagree here because under the Constition the citizen hada right to take his property unywhere the Unions laws held, to deny them thios right was pretty bad for not only economic reasons but for political ones as well.
The slave was held for fear is overblown in my opinion, to be sure a large section where held down by fear, but equially a larger section were held to bondage by rewards, that slavery was based on both carrot and stick is often left out by focus on the stick.
The constitution gave the citizen the right to move property anywhere. I do not think that is a correct interpolation.
I think the constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states and with other nations.
The next thing that slavery had a stick and carrot approach to it. It does not matter if the slaves were treated humanely or not for we are talking about Slavery the inhumanity to one's fellow man. Slavery is an abomination to values of our nation and to the the laws of natural world. Be a slave and tell me it was enjoyable with on rights, no free will, and your life is at the whim of another human.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
The constitution gave the citizen the right to move property anywhere. I do not think that is a correct interpolation.
of course it is, its contract law, the constition protects contracts, chattel slavery is a labour contract, its those constitional laws that were being denied to the owners of slave labour.
Quote:
I think the constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states and with other nations.
yes, and under a number of fedral laws, moving a chattel slave from one state to another, ment that slave was allowed to bring suit for freedom if it sstyed there for one year and the oiwner did not become a citizen of that state, he would then also be ilegaly importing a slave as well.
Quote:
The next thing that slavery had a stick and carrot approach to it. It does not matter if the slaves were treated humanely or not for we are talking about Slavery the inhumanity to one's fellow man. Slavery is an abomination to values of our nation and to the the laws of natural world. Be a slave and tell me it was enjoyable with on rights, no free will, and your life is at the whim of another human.
Nope slavery has been natural lot of man since we formed into societys, its only the degree of exploitation that changes, your cheap chinese cloths are produced by people being explioted in maner US citizens are protected from by law.
slavery, speaking in historical terms has been the norm for all but a fraction of human history, regrdless of where you are in the world, and every major civilisation had it, benifited from it. The US started out with it and could not have been viable without it, the rights of slaves passed to their owner, as property they had more protection than as free and non citizens.
you next point is the real problem with slavery, that of free will, to which their is not nor can be an answer to, slavery is wrong because it removes free will. Out of intrest do you feel the same way about child labour as yopu do for slavery?.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
It is not the point of a contract law. It is that the federal government controls commerce trade between states and property is part of commerce. It is like this, you may own a slave in one state but if congress states slaves cannot cross state lines then you can not take your slave you own across state lines, contract or not.
Quote:
Nope slavery has been natural lot of man since we formed into societys, its only the degree of exploitation that changes, your cheap chinese cloths are produced by people being explioted in maner US citizens are protected from by law.
slavery, speaking in historical terms has been the norm for all but a fraction of human history, regrdless of where you are in the world, and every major civilisation had it, benifited from it. The US started out with it and could not have been viable without it, the rights of slaves passed to their owner, as property they had more protection than as free and non citizens.
Yes, History shows that man has allowed slavery much longer then not, even in our time slavery stills lives. Slaves(people) as property may have had protection but with protection at that price, I'll take the risk of freedom.
Quote:
you next point is the real problem with slavery, that of free will, to which their is not nor can be an answer to, slavery is wrong because it removes free will. Out of intrest do you feel the same way about child labour as yopu do for slavery
First, comparing Chinese labor practices fro our slavery was poor. They may work for wages that are poor but they have many more freedoms then the American slaves of 19th century. You should have use Stalin's labour practices were you work for nothing but for the state and get nothing but early death.
Child labour is interesting for I am not a big anti child labourer person unless the nation in question has resources to support a public school system and give their parents a living wage.
Think about it Child labour is bad but it is worst then slavery.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
Think about it Child labour is bad but it is worst then slavery.
Child labor continues to be a problem and most people find it abhorrent in certain contexts. For instance, if we were to see a 9 year old mowing the lawn with his father, most wouldn't find that particularly troublesome, most would even say its an excellent learning experience. Now, if we change the facts a little bit - now the father owns a landscaping company and is pulling his kid out of school to help him cut lawns, rake leaves, etc., most of us WOULD have a problem with that.
Nevertheless, that doesn't end the inquiry, because at the end of the day child labor exists in many areas where survival itself is dependent on it (subsistence farmers)
The government has the right to 'fix one problem at a time' - for instance, just because there was a bridge collapse in MN, does not mean that they can't fix a pothole in NJ. The problem is that inequities abound but resources are finite....
The constitution gave the citizen the right to move property anywhere. I do not think that is a correct interpolation.
I think the constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states and with other nations.
The next thing that slavery had a stick and carrot approach to it. It does not matter if the slaves were treated humanely or not for we are talking about Slavery the inhumanity to one's fellow man. Slavery is an abomination to values of our nation and to the the laws of natural world. Be a slave and tell me it was enjoyable with on rights, no free will, and your life is at the whim of another human.
Let's take the "slave" out of it.
I live in NJ. Last year I was in a store in PA that sold fireworks, which is illegal in NJ (and, IIRR, there was a placard that said they would not sell them to PA residents in the store).
However, I as a resident of NJ could have bought fireworks in PA. If I then brought them back to NJ, I would be in violation of the law. If my possession of them came to the attention of a police officer, I could be charged with an offense and the fireworks (my "property") could be confiscated.
If we put the "slave" back in by substituting it for "fireworks" and assume we are talking about moving from a "slave" to a "free" state in 1860 instead of PA to NJ in 2007, what exactly is the legal difference? Why is it OK for NJ to seize "fireworks property", and why would it be wrong for them to seize "slave property"?
Before anyone brings it up, I know what the Constitution says. My question is about what makes the right to "fireworks property" different than the right to "slave property"?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Its a general rule of application which is still nevertheless subject to the state's legitimate 'police power' to regulate for 'health, welfare and safety' (which in modern times would have to pass a 'rational basis test' meaning deference is given to the state legislature in this respect)...It is still nevertheless difficult to define what is a legitimate expression of the state's police power with a penalty against interstate commerce.
I live in NJ. Last year I was in a store in PA that sold fireworks, which is illegal in NJ (and, IIRR, there was a placard that said they would not sell them to PA residents in the store).
However, I as a resident of NJ could have bought fireworks in PA. If I then brought them back to NJ, I would be in violation of the law. If my possession of them came to the attention of a police officer, I could be charged with an offense and the fireworks (my "property") could be confiscated.
If we put the "slave" back in by substituting it for "fireworks" and assume we are talking about moving from a "slave" to a "free" state in 1860 instead of PA to NJ in 2007, what exactly is the legal difference? Why is it OK for NJ to seize "fireworks property", and why would it be wrong for them to seize "slave property"?
Before anyone brings it up, I know what the Constitution says. My question is about what makes the right to "fireworks property" different than the right to "slave property"?
Tim
And try taking a radar detector into Virginia. The false claim that the Constitution kept a state from outlawing certain property is laughable.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
