One last little tidbit about the "War to end Slavery"

 

In 1864, the Confederate States began to abandon slavery. There are some indications that even without a war, the Confederacy would have ended slavery. Most historians believe that the Confederacy only started to abandon slavery once their defeat was imminent. If that were true then we are to believe that the CSA wanted independence more than they wanted to hold on to slavery. The CSA’s highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were not slave holders and did not believe in slavery. And according to an 1860 census, only 31% of families owned slaves. 75% of families that owned slaves owned less than 10 and often worked beside them in the fields. The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves.

 

http://listverse.com/2010/12/06/10-surpr...nfederacy/

---

The entire world was consumed by slavery, the war was over the reality of one group telling another group how they could or couldn't commence commerce. If it was all about slavery then explain the slave states in the North. They didn't secede because ending slavery didn't destroy their commerce, the northmen slave states where not dependent on agriculture to survive.

 

Was the South racist, yes. Was the South dependent on Slavery, yes. Was the war fought over Slavery, No. Heck Lincoln had to bring in foreign fighters to fight his war, it wasn't about slavery it was about holding a union together regardless of the people's desire to be apart of the union anymore.

 

And why, pray tell, did they not want to be a part of the union any more?  

 

No one gets a divorce just because they disagree on whether they have a right to get a divorce.   There's always an underlying issue, and it's only then that they assert their right to a divorce. 

 

Here is a copy of the Articles of Secession of South Carolina: 

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

 

They start by asserting their right to secede.   But that's not why they are seceding.    The articles speak about the right to hold slaves, and the disagreement with the North over that right.   They talk about the right to hold slaves as their property rights,  And they say they are seceding to preserve slavery, which they say is under threat from the North.  

 

Read it. 

 

Here's an excerpt: 

 

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." 

 

"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the <i><b>forms</b></i> of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

 

If you read these Articles of Secession of the State of South Carolina, you can see that the entire issue is one of whether slavery shall exist, and that they seceded because of the perceived threat to their ability to hold slaves in their states. 

 

Here's the Texas Ordinance of Secession: 

 

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm

 

"<i>In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. </i>


<i>For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States. "</i>


 

Eric, I don't see how you can deny, the South seceded over the issue of slavery and the perceived threat to slavery from the Northern states.  

---

One last little tidbit about the "War to end Slavery"

 

In 1864, the Confederate States began to abandon slavery. There are some indications that even without a war, the Confederacy would have ended slavery. Most historians believe that the Confederacy only started to abandon slavery once their defeat was imminent. If that were true then we are to believe that the CSA wanted independence more than they wanted to hold on to slavery. The CSA’s highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were not slave holders and did not believe in slavery. And according to an 1860 census, only 31% of families owned slaves. 75% of families that owned slaves owned less than 10 and often worked beside them in the fields. The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves.

 

http://listverse.com/2010/12/06/10-surpr...nfederacy/

 

You assert that the CSA wanted independence more than they wanted to hold onto slavery.   But what was the reason they wanted independence?  

 

Read the Articles of Secession of the seceding states.   It's stated as plain as day: they wanted to secede because they wanted to keep their slaves. 

 

Here's the Georgia declaration of immediate causes, January 29, 1861: 

 

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

 

==================================

 

In fact, here are the ordinances of secession of South Carolina Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia.  Read them.   They all say they are seceding because of the threat to slavery coming from the North.

 

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/am...ssion.html

---

If you study the history of pre-secession/pre-Civil War propaganda in the southern states, the issue and fear of the eventual abolishment of slavery by the Federal government provided the final push towards secession.

 

Every other grievance southern states had could have been negotiated and settled with legislation, but the one single right certain states held dear enough to go to war over was that of owning slaves. Eric is correct, most southerners were too poor to own any or more that a few slaves, but as usual it was the big plantation owners that had the most to lose, and held the greatest amount of influence.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

You assert that the CSA wanted independence more than they wanted to hold onto slavery.   But what was the reason they wanted independence?  

 

Read the Articles of Secession of the seceding states.   It's stated as plain as day: they wanted to secede because they wanted to keep their slaves. 

 

Here's the Georgia declaration of immediate causes, January 29, 1861: 

 

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

 

==================================

 

In fact, here are the ordinances of secession of South Carolina Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia.  Read them.   They all say they are seceding because of the threat to slavery coming from the North.

 

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/am...ssion.html

 

That was the upper class of the CSA, the majority of the soldiers that fought in the CSA didn't hold slaves, never would have held slaves, and many of them didn't even agree with slavery. It was a war over the right to leave a union they believed they had the right to leave.

 

I pointed out earlier two of the highest generals in the Confederate Army didn't even hold slaves and did not believe in slavery, there was also Union States that where slave states.

 

Saying the Civil War was about Slavery is as accurate as saying World War II was about Jews.

---

That was the upper class of the CSA, the majority of the soldiers that fought in the CSA didn't hold slaves, never would have held slaves, and many of them didn't even agree with slavery. It was a war over the right to leave a union they believed they had the right to leave.

 

I pointed out earlier two of the highest generals in the Confederate Army didn't even hold slaves and did not believe in slavery, there was also Union States that where slave states.

 

Saying the Civil War was about Slavery is as accurate as saying World War II was about Jews.

 

When has any war been fought for the beliefs or wishes of anyone other than the upper class? When have the personal beliefs of generals on social issues had anything to do with the reasons for going to war?

 

You have an incredibly naive and revisionist notion of the realities of those times. You cannot simply ignore the official declarations of secession by many southern states, nor the controversy over the potential admission of slave territories into statehood or the rhetoric of anti-abolitionist rhetoric leading up to the genesis of the civil war. Yes, it was about states rights, and chief among those rights was that of states allowing their most affluent citizens to own slaves.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

If you study the history of pre-secession/pre-Civil War propaganda in the southern states, the issue and fear of the eventual abolishment of slavery by the Federal government provided the final push towards secession.

 

Every other grievance southern states had could have been negotiated and settled with legislation, but the one single right certain states held dear enough to go to war over was that of owning slaves. Eric is correct, most southerners were too poor to own any or more that a few slaves, but as usual it was the big plantation owners that had the most to lose, and held the greatest amount of influence.

 

So exactly as things are now?  :verymad:

---

When has any war been fought for the beliefs or wishes of anyone other than the upper class? When have the personal beliefs of generals on social issues had anything to do with the reasons for going to war?


You have an incredibly naive and revisionist notion of the realities of those times. You cannot simply ignore the official declarations of secession by many southern states, nor the controversy over the potential admission of slave territories into statehood or the rhetoric of anti-abolitionist rhetoric leading up to the genesis of the civil war. Yes, it was about states rights, and chief among those rights was that of states allowing their most affluent citizens to own slaves.

Not ignoring just putting it in context. There was no agriculture anywhere in the world without slavery and agriculture was their lively hood. If the war was about the north wanting to free slaves there wouldn't have been slave states in the union, nor would Lincoln have waited so long to make the emancipation proclamation, I can go on and on.


Slavery was the final straw that pushed them to succession but flsprtgod was suggesting the civil war is what freed the slaves, that's not even remotely true.

---

Not ignoring just putting it in context. There was no agriculture anywhere in the world without slavery and agriculture was their lively hood. If the war was about the north wanting to free slaves there wouldn't have been slave states in the union, nor would Lincoln have waited so long to make the emancipation proclamation, I can go on and on.


Slavery was the final straw that pushed them to succession but flsprtgod was suggesting the civil war is what freed the slaves, that's not even remotely true.

 

I cannot believe how you can ignore the entire history of the period leading up to the war.  

 

What was the most popular novel of the 1850s?  Uncle Tom's Cabin

What was the most important and controversial Supreme Court decision of the 1850s?   Dredd Scott

Why did a Southern senator beat a Northern senator on the floor of the senate with a cane? 

Why did congressmen start taking guns onto the floor of the congress? 

What was the Kansas-Nebraska act?   Why did they call it "bleeding Kansas?"  

What was the grand compromise authored by Henry Clay? 

What were the Lincoln-Douglas debates? 

Who was John Brown?  Frederick Douglass? 

Why did the election of Lincoln cause the South to secede? 

 

This is all just off the top of my head.  The history of the decade leading up to the Civil War was all about the controversy over slavery.   The southern states stated in their articles of secession, which I have provided to you, that they were seceding over the issue of slavery and the threat to their way of life and their property, African slaves.  The majority of wealth in the south was the value of the African slaves.  

 

You ignore all this and say the civil war was fought over the issue of whether the states could leave the union. That's like a person filing for divorce just to prove they can do it.  Well, why did they want to leave the union in the first place?  

 

You have gone back and re-written history to fit your personal political beliefs.   That's what you've done. 

---

Not ignoring just putting it in context. There was no agriculture anywhere in the world without slavery and agriculture was their lively hood. If the war was about the north wanting to free slaves there wouldn't have been slave states in the union, nor would Lincoln have waited so long to make the emancipation proclamation, I can go on and on.


Slavery was the final straw that pushed them to succession but flsprtgod was suggesting the civil war is what freed the slaves, that's not even remotely true.

Not to derail the thread but this sounds eerily similar to the current situation of business thriving off low wage workers. 

---

Not to derail the thread but this sounds eerily similar to the current situation of business thriving off low wage workers. 

 

Big corporations absolutely thrive off low wages, however business can and is conducted without the minimum wages every day. In that time there was no other way to mass produce agriculture without slave labor.

 

I cannot believe how you can ignore the entire history of the period leading up to the war.  

 

What was the most popular novel of the 1850s?  Uncle Tom's Cabin

What was the most important and controversial Supreme Court decision of the 1850s?   Dredd Scott

Why did a Southern senator beat a Northern senator on the floor of the senate with a cane? 

Why did congressmen start taking guns onto the floor of the congress? 

What was the Kansas-Nebraska act?   Why did they call it "bleeding Kansas?"  

What was the grand compromise authored by Henry Clay? 

What were the Lincoln-Douglas debates? 

Who was John Brown?  Frederick Douglass? 

Why did the election of Lincoln cause the South to secede? 

 

This is all just off the top of my head.  The history of the decade leading up to the Civil War was all about the controversy over slavery.   The southern states stated in their articles of secession, which I have provided to you, that they were seceding over the issue of slavery and the threat to their way of life and their property, African slaves.  The majority of wealth in the south was the value of the African slaves.  

 

You ignore all this and say the civil war was fought over the issue of whether the states could leave the union. That's like a person filing for divorce just to prove they can do it.  Well, why did they want to leave the union in the first place?  

 

You have gone back and re-written history to fit your personal political beliefs.   That's what you've done. 

 

I don't have a dog in the fight, I have no lineage to any southern roots, heck my families from Canada and Columbia. You want to make the civil war about some noble cause but it just simply wasn't. There was good and bad on both sides, there was slave holders and anti-slavery parties in both the Union and Confederacy. Everything boiled down to one simple question, do States have the right to enter and leave the union freely or are they obligated to the union under the threat of force.

---

Big corporations absolutely thrive off low wages, however business can and is conducted without the minimum wages every day. In that time there was no other way to mass produce agriculture without slave labor.



I don't have a dog in the fight, I have no lineage to any southern roots, heck my families from Canada and Columbia. You want to make the civil war about some noble cause but it just simply wasn't. There was good and bad on both sides, there was slave holders and anti-slavery parties in both the Union and Confederacy. Everything boiled down to one simple question, do States have the right to enter and leave the union freely or are they obligated to the union under the threat of force.

No, states do not have the right to leave the union, Eric.

---

Big corporations absolutely thrive off low wages, however business can and is conducted without the minimum wages every day. In that time there was no other way to mass produce agriculture without slave labor.

 

 

I don't have a dog in the fight, I have no lineage to any southern roots, heck my families from Canada and Columbia. You want to make the civil war about some noble cause but it just simply wasn't. There was good and bad on both sides, there was slave holders and anti-slavery parties in both the Union and Confederacy. Everything boiled down to one simple question, do States have the right to enter and leave the union freely or are they obligated to the union under the threat of force.

 

No territories assumed statehood freely, and the primary debate at the time was whether they entered as free or slave states.

 

No issue fueled talk of secession more than a threat to the institution of slavery.

 

The Civil War would not have been fought had slavery not been an issue. It was the one non-negotiable item.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Big corporations absolutely thrive off low wages, however business can and is conducted without the minimum wages every day. In that time there was no other way to mass produce agriculture without slave labor.

 

 

I don't have a dog in the fight, I have no lineage to any southern roots, heck my families from Canada and Columbia. You want to make the civil war about some noble cause but it just simply wasn't. There was good and bad on both sides, there was slave holders and anti-slavery parties in both the Union and Confederacy. Everything boiled down to one simple question, do States have the right to enter and leave the union freely or are they obligated to the union under the threat of force.

 Eric, the states didn't secede over the question of whether they have the right to secede.  In their own words, they seceded over the issue of slavery, and the perceived threat to what they considered their property, African slaves.   They said so themselves.   I showed you where they said it.  

 

Yes, they claimed they had the right to secede, but that would have never come up without the issue of slavery and the movement in the North to end slavery. 

 

The country was consumed by the issue of slavery more than it has ever been consumed by any issue before or since.  

 

I don't know where you get your history, but you have allowed yourself to be severely misled somehow. 

---

 Eric, the states didn't secede over the question of whether they have the right to secede.  In their own words, they seceded over the issue of slavery, and the perceived threat to what they considered their property, African slaves.   They said so themselves.   I showed you where they said it.  

 

Yes, they claimed they had the right to secede, but that would have never come up without the issue of slavery and the movement in the North to end slavery. 

 

The country was consumed by the issue of slavery more than it has ever been consumed by any issue before or since.  

 

I don't know where you get your history, but you have allowed yourself to be severely misled somehow. 

And you know what the most incredible thing about America is? we're the only country or society in all of human history to have gone to war over the issue of slavery. Britain, France, Spain, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, and a whole host of Latin American countries had already abolished slavery/indentured servitude by the time of our great Civil War.

 

 

Honestly, we could have a separate thread of about 200+ pages right now talking just about the Civil War and its issues. No other period in all of American history has scarred this Country more than the time of 1860-1865. It's easily the most misunderstood period in American history as well...

---

No, states do not have the right to leave the union, Eric.

That would be the conclusion one has to come to after the civil war. Apparently states are held by threat of force to the union, however I don't imagine that was the intention when the states first united. Alas nothing is forever.....

---

Not ignoring just putting it in context. There was no agriculture anywhere in the world without slavery and agriculture was their lively hood.

 

Actually, chattel slavery was outlawed by the British Empire 40 years before the American Civil War and most of their agricultural consumption moved to Egypt and India as a result of our continued dependency on it. As the declining Superpower and one of the key customers of the American South it put great strain on the South's ability to wage war because they were no longer indispensable to the Limeys by 1863. Any notion that the American Civil War was, fundamentally, about anything OTHER than slavery is Lost Cause Revisionism. 85 years of infighting over the Peculiar Institution finally erupted in blood and death, with, as I originally stated, WAR ending it here in the USA once and for all.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No territories assumed statehood freely, and the primary debate at the time was whether they entered as free or slave states.


No issue fueled talk of secession more than a threat to the institution of slavery.


The Civil War would not have been fought had slavery not been an issue. It was the one non-negotiable item.

And the reason why it was non-negotiable was because the northern states had been engaging in economic warfare and destroying the southern economy built on agriculture. I'm not denying slavery was an issue. I'm arguing that Slavery was not the cause of the civil war. The confederate solders didn't march off to die so plantation owners could keep slaves, the hated the north because they believed the north was imposing their traditions, beliefs, and economic burdens on the south.

---

Eric, the states didn't secede over the question of whether they have the right to secede. In their own words, they seceded over the issue of slavery, and the perceived threat to what they considered their property, African slaves. They said so themselves. I showed you where they said it.


Yes, they claimed they had the right to secede, but that would have never come up without the issue of slavery and the movement in the North to end slavery.


The country was consumed by the issue of slavery more than it has ever been consumed by any issue before or since.


I don't know where you get your history, but you have allowed yourself to be severely misled somehow.

You so realize it wasn't just Africans that where slaves right?

---

Actually, chattel slavery was outlawed by the British Empire 40 years before the American Civil War and most of their agricultural consumption moved to Egypt and India as a result of our continued dependency on it. As the declining Superpower and one of the key customers of the American South it put great strain on the South's ability to wage war because they were no longer indispensable to the Limeys by 1863. Any notion that the American Civil War was, fundamentally, about anything OTHER than slavery is Lost Cause Revisionism. 85 years of infighting over the Peculiar Institution finally erupted in blood and death, with, as I originally stated, WAR ending it here in the USA once and for all.

if war ended slavery explain the union slave states.......

---