North And South.

by Englishman 25 Replies latest social entertainment

• 

  Farkel

  Robin,

  : The North still thinks that Southerners all have outdoor plumbing and still hate blacks.

  They don't?

  The US Civil War was fought over the issue of States Rights vs. the Federal Rights Conveyed in the US Constitution. Slavery was merely the excuse for the Southern States to exercise those rights "not specifically stated" in the Constitution and reserved for the People and the States respectively . As such, the Southern States had a very valid argument. The original Constitution allocated Blacks and Indians as having a 4/5th (if memory serves me correctly) count in a Census. Given that, they were obviously not considered 100% "human."

  Blacks and Indians were obviously sub-human to those who framed the US Constitution. Future amendments to that document changed that, but not before more Americans were lost than in any battle Americans have ever engaged in, before or since. Yep, our Civil War killed more of use than WWI and WWII and Korea and Vietnam COMBINED!

  Blacks are now considered to be full-fledged "humans" in our society. So are "Indians." DOH!

  Farkel

  Edited by - Farkel on 11 August 2002 1:43:40
• 

  Robdar

  Farkel, ever kissed a southern gal's ass?

  Robyn
• 

  david_10

  I don't disagree with Farkel very often----in fact, I don't think I've ever disagreed with Farkel------and I always appreciate the lucid insight that LB displays in his posts, but this time I have to bring up an opposing viewpoint. It looks like this thread is about over, so I don't think I'll spend all night typing up a doctoral thesis, but let me at least get my 2 cents in. It is true that the North and South had many and vast differences and slavery was one of them. But slavery was the main one, and was the only one serious enough to go to war over. Think about it: take slavery out of the picture,totally---------if slavery didn't exist or if both sides agreed on the issue, would there have been a Civil War? Don't think so. Without the division caused by slavery, would the Southern states have left the union? Don't think so. Everything that I've learned about the subject shows that it was a war waged over African slavery; all other differences could have been negotiated or compromised. But not slavery. Combine this with Southern arrogance and the belief that they absolutely right and must have their way, then war could not be avoided. Mark Twain made a very interesting observation that I would like to share: he said the war was fought because Southerners had read too much Sir Walter Scott. By that, he meant that that the South had these preconceived notions that war was a romantic and dainty affair carried out on the field of honor with both sides adhering to strict rules of conduct and chivalry. Boy, were they ever in for a rude awakening.

  A facsinating subject that would be interesting to continue.......

  David

  Edited by - david_10 on 11 August 2002 22:53:56
• 

  Tammie

  But slavery was the main one, and was the only one serious enough to go to war over. Think about it: take slavery out of the picture,totally---------if slavery didn't exist or if both sides agreed on the issue, would there have been a Civil War? Don't think so.

  This is a total untrue statement. The civil war was not about slaves. Infact, slavery, was on it's way out anyway. Most folks who lived in the south was very poor, and could not afford to care for them. Only a very few, did own them. The war had to do with "big business" and the south was getting the "shaft" or was being cheated. People was getting tired of the Northern banking system and Northern businesses telling them basicly what to do.
• 

  bigboi

  The Civil War was fought for all sorts of reasons. Slavery being the chief issue. Think about it ppl. As farkel mentioned, during the framing of the Constitution the delegates fought and debated over how slaves would be counted. Jump forward 40 or so yrs and the abolitionist movement is strong. Whether new states being admitted to the Union are slave states or free is a hotly contested issue. The issue of slavery was a very real and prominent issue during that time. It may not have been the only part of the culture that the South wanted to preserve, but it definitely was a central issue.

  It's not a reach to say that the culture of the South was shaped by slavery.

  ONE....

  bigboi
• 

  LB

  Oh don't get me started on Indians. Indians were sub human by government opinion and unlike the Blacks it was felt they couldn't be controlled or taught. We couldn't have slaves anymore and the US government issued an edict that the "infestation" of Indians needed to be dealt with. Where I live the Indians were to be exterminated.

  Civil war was fought over tariffs on cotton. The north wanted their fair share of profits and it was putting many cotton growers out of business even with all the slaves. Trust me, if the south hadn't pushed the issue the north would have loved to continue to collect their taxes and allowed the blacks to be enslaved.

  Either way, the war was horrible. I have visited many civil war battlefields. Imagine Gettysburg where so many were buried quickly in shallow graves only to have the rain wash them to the surface a few weeks later. Makes you sick to think about it.
• 

  Farkel

  David,

  : But slavery was the main one, and was the only one serious enough to go to war over. Think about it: take slavery out of the picture,totally---------if slavery didn't exist or if both sides agreed on the issue, would there have been a Civil War?

  Of course, I cannot give any sort of accurate answer to unprovable hypothetical questions. The states, and particularly the Southern States fought hard to make sure the Constitution did not give the Federal Government a free hand in any State activities the Fed. deemed appropriate.

  There was already intrusion by the Federal Government in the decades before the Civil War and the South resented it. Slavery was what precipitated the Civil War, or to put it another way it was the straw that broke the Camel's back, or the excuse for the South to succede.

  Slavery was not the ONLY problem serious enough to go to war over. Times had changed since 1989 when the US Constitution took effect. Many of the authors of the Constitution were slave owners at the time. The North slowly changed over the decades, but the South didn't and were very proud of their tradition. Their sovereignty as States was threatened, and the North wanting to free the Slaves was a threat to that very same sovereignty.

  I know there are other viewpoints, but from what I've read about the Civil War, the main issue of contention was State's rights, of which Slavery was only one thing in dispute.

  It cost 500,000 American lives to settle that "dispute."

  Farkel
• 

  Mac

  E-Man,

  Aside from the countries of California and Texas, we're pretty much one big unified family!!!!!!!
• 

  bigboi

  Maybe it is more correct to say that slavery was the root cause of all the myriad of problems that led up to the Civil War.

  Think about it. Someone mentioned cotton tariffs. Cotton could not have become the king crop it did were it not for slave labor. The entire Southern economy that was dominated by the rich plantation owners and spawned an enire culture would not have been possible except for slave labor.

  Yes eventually states rights were brought into it. More often than not though the right the states wanted to assert was that of it's residents to own slaves.
• 

  david_10

  Tammie says that slavery was on its way out anyway, and I believe that. With the huge advances in the cotton gin and other farm machine technology, the spreading of the railroads, the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania and the beginning of that industry in the 1850's-------in short, with the Industrial Revolution in full swing and with good ol' Yankee ingenuity coming up with solutions to age-old problems--------machinery was heading south, and even with the Southern adherence to tradition, I don't think they could have stopped it, and once they tried it, I think they would have embraced it whole-heartedly. So, it just makes sense that slavery's days were numbered. Within one generation, two at the most, slavery would have probably outlived it's importance and usefulness. BUT----(and there's always a "but",isn't there?)------this is the speculation of perfect hindsight, and they didn't realize this at the time. At that time, all they saw was their way of life being threatened by meddling Northern politicians and Abolitionists. Bigboi says that slavery is what shaped southern culture. How true. And this isn't to say that every Southerner owned slaves or that every Southerner lived on a fabulous antebellum plantation. They didn't. But the "peculiar institution", as it was called, certainly had a more profound impact on southern life than anything else, and they didn't want to give it up.

  LB, you said that if the south hadn't pushed the issue the north would have loved to continue to collect their taxes and allow the blacks to be enslaved. That's a very interesting thought, and I would have to think about that and do some research on it. But off the top of my head, I would have to doubt it, because the Abolitionist movement was picking up steam and getting pretty strong, and they were putting enormous pressure on everybody. Many Abolitionists very wealthy and had strong political connections. And so, even with the powerful lure of money, I don't think tariffs would have stopped the righteous (and hypocritical) indignation that was spreading through the north like a Colorado wildfire.

  Farkel, as usual, your logic and facts are unassailable, and I agree that I have brought up a hypothethical question that can't be answered. However, part of the lessons of history and the benefits of studying history is to raise the "What if........" questions. And again, with the benefit of hindsight, I think the question is a valid one; so I'll ask it again: "If slavery didn't exist or if both sides agreed on the issue, would there have been a Civil War?"

  And so, that brings me back around as to what the war was fought over in the first place. (And I admit : I've got to get my books and look this up. I'm doing that right now.........)

  OK, dammit, I can't find the smoking gun that I'm looking for----------you know, the one that quotes Lincoln or Seward or someone saying: "If you Southern states don't end slavery immediately, then I will send Federal troops down there and end it for you." That's what I'm looking for, but it just doesn't exist, does it? By the same token, I can't find it stated anywhere that the South presented an ultimatum to Washington to "butt-out of our business or get ready for war." It does get complicated.

  But this is what I did find:

  May 19, 1856. After a speech attacking slavery, Senator Charles Sumner is beaten on the Senate floor by Congressman Preston Brooks from South Carolina.

  May 12, 1859. The Southern Commercial Convention meeting in Vicksburg, Mississippi demands that all laws prohibiting the African slave trade be repealed.

  February, 1860. Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a bill saying that the Federal government cannot prohibit slavery.

  November 13, 1860 editorial in New Orleans Daily Crescent: "The history of the Abolition Party of the North is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establisment of absolute tyranny over the slaveholding States. And all without the smallest warrent, excuse or justification....They have robbed us of our property (italics mine)......"

  I could go on and on, but you get the idea: The issue over slavery was was an open sore, emotions were running high and violence was pending. Admittedly, I have skewered this presentation to include the quotes I want-----------while reading, I also found references to states' rights and other issues that were causing heated debates, and in one quote, Jefferson Davis even says that slavery wasn't the reason why the war started. Well, I shouldn't have brought that up, should I? But, Farkel, it comes down to the question I raised: Without slavery, would there have been a war? You yourself said that "slavery was what precipitated the Civil War, or to put it another way it was the straw that broke the Camel's back." Without that straw, would there have been a war? Kenneth Davis, in his wonderful book "Don't know Much About the Civil War" wrote: "The Civil War was clearly fought because of African slavery. All the other justifications come down to political differences..." My other references say pretty much the same thing. But I'm sure that other respected historians will say exactly the opposite. And the debate rages. Comments.........?

  (This is why I love this place----------just look at everthing you get into.)

  David