Was slavery the only reason of the war?

[Glorybound]

Tarriffs? pleaseme!

LOL! Thanks for that.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Here is the test; would there have been war without secession? Would any of the 'other' causes have resulted in secession without slavery?

 

[Glorybound]

Here is the test; would there have been war without secession? Would any of the 'other' causes have resulted in secession without slavery?

No.

 

[James B White]

Here is the test; would there have been war without secession?

The happenings in antebellum Kansas-Missouri were pretty close to a war, even without secession.

Would any of the 'other' causes have resulted in secession without slavery?

And we all know what they were fighting over.

 

[OpnCoronet]

...and we know what was the cause of the 'happenings' in antebellum Kansas-Missouri and we know it was not tariffs.

 

[Battalion]

...and we know what was the cause of the 'happenings' in antebellum Kansas-Missouri and we know it was not tariffs.

One side wanted the territories open to slavery. The other side wanted them reserved for whites (no blacks in/all Indians out). It seems the coin has two sides.

 

[OpnCoronet]

The issue was in fact, the expansion of slave labor as opposed to Free labor. Whatever may have been in the hearts of the individuals involved in the controversy, the concept of free labor was not race based.

 

[wilber6150]

One side wanted the territories open to slavery. The other side wanted them reserved for whites (no blacks in/all Indians out). It seems the coin has two sides.

Wheres your source that free blacks weren't wanted in the territories you have mentioned that several times...And Im sure the pro-slavery forces would have welcomed indianss and free blacks to their social gatherings as well...

 

[Battalion]

The issue was in fact, the expansion of slave labor as opposed to Free labor. Whatever may have been in the hearts of the individuals involved in the controversy, the concept of free labor was not race based.

The phrase "free white labor" comes up quite often in the 19th century.

 

[ExNavyPilot]

James,
I'll admit that those quotes are disgusting but it was a different time. Slavery or any other institution at that time was a State issue. Lincoln, the clever trial lawyer, figured out that by using slavery as a moral issue could then use it to expand Federal power over the States. Look at our country today. We are ALL SLAVES now! C.M.

I am DEEPLY offended by your remark. How in any way is your situation, or mine, comparable to slavery? Can you and I travel freely from place to place without being tracked down by men with hounds and guns? Yes. Can you and I choose where we want to live, where we want to work, what we want to wear? Of course. Can we live peaceably in our own house/apartment with our own family without someone coming into my house, taking the wife and kids and selling them off to someone else, never to see them again? Definitely. Are we property, with no human rights, or we citizens with all our Constitutional rights? Certainly the latter.

Of course, because I live in a society of people with governmental institutions, and not in pure anarchy, I volunteer to give up some of my "freedom." I agree to follow laws (or pay the consequences); pay taxes to fund education, security, infrastructure, etc, so I don't have to take care of all of those things myself; and defend my country if called upon. And when I voluntarily joined the military to "support and defend the Constitution of the US", I gave up even more of my freedom. Does any of this make me remotely like a slave? No way.

You can go ahead and whine about how some of your rights have been trampled, and how horrible our country has become (I totally disagree), and complain all you want about big government and THE MAN keeping you down. That's your right. And you won't be whipped or beaten in the process. (Maybe just ignored or ridiculed, but that's OUR right.) Just don't compare your free, easy existence with that of slavery. You look foolish in the process...

 

[ExNavyPilot]

One side wanted the territories open to slavery. The other side wanted them reserved for whites (no blacks in/all Indians out). It seems the coin has two sides.

I tend to agree with you on this one, Battalion. The south wanted the territories open to slavery, the north wanted it for free labor. Generally, neither the north or the south wanted free blacks in the territories, much less Native Americans. (Remember Andrew Jackson, the Cherokees and the "Trail of Tears.")

I don't think you mean to infer that because the south wanted black slaves in the territories, they were less racist than the northerners who didn't want black slaves or free blacks, do you? It's good to point out that the North's intentions were not ALL goody-goody in regards to slavery, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that Lincoln's government called for emancipation and the north supported what ultimately became the 13th amendment.

(PS Sorry about the time-late on my previous post. Just got back from a trip overseas, working with our NATO allies on some doctrinal issues, and I couldn't avoid commenting on that slavery assertion.)

 

[unionblue]

No.

Glorybound,

Agreed.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

One side wanted the territories open to slavery. The other side wanted them reserved for whites (no blacks in/all Indians out). It seems the coin has two sides.

But still only one cause.

 

[unionblue]

The phrase "free white labor" comes up quite often in the 19th century.

And?

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

I am DEEPLY offended by your remark. How in any way is your situation, or mine, comparable to slavery? Can you and I travel freely from place to place without being tracked down by men with hounds and guns? Yes. Can you and I choose where we want to live, where we want to work, what we want to wear? Of course. Can we live peaceably in our own house/apartment with our own family without someone coming into my house, taking the wife and kids and selling them off to someone else, never to see them again? Definitely. Are we property, with no human rights, or we citizens with all our Constitutional rights? Certainly the latter.

Of course, because I live in a society of people with governmental institutions, and not in pure anarchy, I volunteer to give up some of my "freedom." I agree to follow laws (or pay the consequences); pay taxes to fund education, security, infrastructure, etc, so I don't have to take care of all of those things myself; and defend my country if called upon. And when I voluntarily joined the military to "support and defend the Constitution of the US", I gave up even more of my freedom. Does any of this make me remotely like a slave? No way.

You can go ahead and whine about how some of your rights have been trampled, and how horrible our country has become (I totally disagree), and complain all you want about big government and THE MAN keeping you down. That's your right. And you won't be whipped or beaten in the process. (Maybe just ignored or ridiculed, but that's OUR right.) Just don't compare your free, easy existence with that of slavery. You look foolish in the process...

ExNavyPilot,

Thank you for your above post.

It is deeply appreciated.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Ellsworth avenger]

One side wanted the territories open to slavery. The other side wanted them reserved for whites (no blacks in/all Indians out). It seems the coin has two sides

Lecompton Constitution,Article 7, section23; "Free negroes shall not be permitted to live in this State under any circumstances."

 

[cash]

I tend to agree with you on this one, Battalion. The south wanted the territories open to slavery, the north wanted it for free labor. Generally, neither the north or the south wanted free blacks in the territories, much less Native Americans. (Remember Andrew Jackson, the Cherokees and the "Trail of Tears.")

I don't think you mean to infer that because the south wanted black slaves in the territories, they were less racist than the northerners who didn't want black slaves or free blacks, do you? It's good to point out that the North's intentions were not ALL goody-goody in regards to slavery, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that Lincoln's government called for emancipation and the north supported what ultimately became the 13th amendment.

(PS Sorry about the time-late on my previous post. Just got back from a trip overseas, working with our NATO allies on some doctrinal issues, and I couldn't avoid commenting on that slavery assertion.)

Welcome home. Hope your trip was both productive and enjoyable. Keeping the territories for free white labor was one of the arguments used to support preventing the extension of slavery, but it was not the only reason. Battalion knows that. Lincoln used the free white labor argument in southern Illinois, populated by people who had come from southern states, while he used the argument of putting slavery on the road to extinction in middle and northern Illinois, populated by people who generally had moved west from New England.

 

[Battalion]

Welcome home. Hope your trip was both productive and enjoyable. Keeping the territories for free white labor was one of the arguments used to support preventing the extension of slavery, but it was not the only reason. Battalion knows that. Lincoln used the free white labor argument in southern Illinois, populated by people who had come from southern states, while he used the argument of putting slavery on the road to extinction in middle and northern Illinois, populated by people who generally had moved west from New England.

Oh so it was only southerners that had moved north that appreciated the free white labor argument. The native born of the north wanted freedom and equality for all....sure...

 

[cash]

Oh so it was only southerners that had moved north that appreciated the free white labor argument. The native born of the north wanted freedom and equality for all....sure...

Look at where the argument was made and the pattern of movement into the states.

 

[Battalion]

Let's look into the territories...

Oregon

...became a territory in 1848. Approved a constitution in 1857 and entered the Union two years later.

Here are a few of the constitutional provisions (approved by popular vote)-

Article I, Section 34 - There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in the state, otherwise than as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Article I, Section 35 - No free Negro, or Mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution*, shall come, reside, or be within this state, or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the Legislative Assembly shall provide by penal laws, for the removal, by public officers, of all such Negroes, and Mulattos, and for their effectual exclusion from the state, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ, or harbor them. (Repealed, November 3, 1926.)

Yes, that's 1926.

*128 souls exempted.

What was the composition of the Oregon population by the 1860 Census?-

Nativity
Northern States............35%
Oregon.........................32%
Southern States............23%
Foreign........................10%