Remove ads

Was the U.S civil war really about slavery?

Was the U.S civil war about Slavery or more generally the differences in lifestyle and government

  • Total voters
    197
Volt Cruelerz said:
Ah. Wasn't aware of Fillmore threatening to enforce it with martial law.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah he threaten Vermont then Another Nullification Crisis: Vermont's 1850 Habeas Corpus Law on JSTOR to see most of it you will need to make an ancount or paybut the free preview mentions Fillmore's threat and how the whole event was similar to South Carolina's 1832 nullification attempt. And he used soldiers to escort people down to the south and tried to charge people woth treason Resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act - Dictionary definition of Resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary. It's also safe to say due to Fillmore's way of handling slavery caused the Whig party to decline and be replaced by the Republican party
 
Saying "The Civil War was about slavery" really dumbs down a complex issue and ignores a lot of other stuff that was going on at the time. But saying "The Civil War wasn't about slavery" is utterly wrong to the point of being laughable.
 
The civil war was fractaly about slavery, not only was it the immediate, primary reason for secession, but it was also the cause of all the secondary reasons it was supposedly "really" about.
 
Article:
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from the service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.

...I'd say yes.
 
Fernandel said:
Article:
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from the service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.

...I'd say yes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If that didn't make things clear enough, there's always the Cornerstone Speech, of which the following is an excerpt:
Article:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.


But of course, saying that the civil war was somehow about slavery is clearly just neoliberal revisionist history :rolleyes:
 
I would like to point everyone to two pieces of analyses on the American Civil War. The History Buff's Guide to the Civil War, and Ken Burn's The Civil War.
 
Fernandel said:
Article:
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from the service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.

...I'd say yes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Vindictus said:
If that didn't make things clear enough, there's always the Cornerstone Speech, of which the following is an excerpt:
Article:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.


But of course, saying that the civil war was somehow about slavery is clearly just neoliberal revisionist history :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

These are some of the main reasons me and my siblings despise the CSA and think people who fly the battle flag are idiots. Like the only major disagreement I've had with my brother about the CSA is whether it is the 5th or 4th most evil nation we know of.

Burning Baron said:
I would like to point everyone to two pieces of analyses on the American Civil War. The History Buff's Guide to the Civil War, and Ken Burn's The Civil War.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sounds interesting do you know a good place to find copies.
 
Yes.

Basically, on the surface it's about slavery. Dig down a bit deeper and there's a myriad of issues that if you look at in detail also boil down to slavery.

States rights? For them when they allow slavery, against them when they hamper slavery. Economics? Against changes that could threaten the institution of slavery. Westward expansion? Wants to mandate slavery there to secure the institution. The war itself? Struck first because they believed the mere 'peaceful' expansion of slavery (in as much slavery can ever be called 'peaceful') would lead the North to cut them off so they wanted to, not just break away peacefully, but win a war and become the dominant power so they could expand slavery. Etc. etc..

Not only is it about slavery, but the further you look, the more it becomes about slavery to an almost comical event. The more I am educated about the Civil War the more I've discovered it's about slavery.

The Confederacy leadership didn't trust the white North Carolinian tarheals because the tarheals weren't too into slavery. White folk were tortured and killed for speaking out against slavery. It's like an onion of reasons that boil down to layer upon layer of slavery.
 
And outside of slave states that stayed in the union a lot of northern resistance that wasn't from immigrants being sent off to fight because someone wealthy payed off the government causing them to be drafted instead came from cities that profited from southern slavery.
 
pianoman said:
These are some of the main reasons me and my siblings despise the CSA and think people who fly the battle flag are idiots. Like the only major disagreement I've had with my brother about the CSA is whether it is the 5th or 4th most evil nation we know of.

Sounds interesting do you know a good place to find copies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Amen, brother. Ironically, other than my homeland (low country South Carolina) the area I've been that denies this the hardest... Is rural Appalachia. Which, seeing as they weren't too keen on slavery, makes it so ironic that half the population (maybe more) flys the Battleflag.

Q99 said:
Yes.

Basically, on the surface it's about slavery. Dig down a bit deeper and there's a myriad of issues that if you look at in detail also boil down to slavery.

States rights? For them when they allow slavery, against them when they hamper slavery. Economics? Against changes that could threaten the institution of slavery. Westward expansion? Wants to mandate slavery there to secure the institution. The war itself? Struck first because they believed the mere 'peaceful' expansion of slavery (in as much slavery can ever be called 'peaceful') would lead the North to cut them off so they wanted to, not just break away peacefully, but win a war and become the dominant power so they could expand slavery. Etc. etc..

Not only is it about slavery, but the further you look, the more it becomes about slavery to an almost comical event. The more I am educated about the Civil War the more I've discovered it's about slavery.

The Confederacy leadership didn't trust the white North Carolinian tarheals because the tarheals weren't too into slavery. White folk were tortured and killed for speaking out against slavery. It's like an onion of reasons that boil down to layer upon layer of slavery.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Whut.
I mean, I know that Appalachia wasn't terribly into the war, but other than that the only white population I heard had any ambiguous loyalties was the Great Dismal Tawnies. And they were literally maroon dwelling guerrillas who'd spent *a hundred and fifty years* fighting a triracial war alongside escaped slaves and Indians against local slave owners.
 
The main result of the civil war was to make Appalachian residents deeply resentful of government authority because brutal and destructive acts by both the confederate and union armies and extremely distrustful of outsiders. Also some of the worse irregular warfare took place in the Appalachia with with many of the organized bands later becoming bandits post war while others led to long standing feuds.
 
Humerus said:
Amen, brother. Ironically, other than my homeland (low country South Carolina) the area I've been that denies this the hardest... Is rural Appalachia. Which, seeing as they weren't too keen on slavery, makes it so ironic that half the population (maybe more) flys the Battleflag.


Whut.
I mean, I know that Appalachia wasn't terribly into the war, but other than that the only white population I heard had any ambiguous loyalties was the Great Dismal Tawnies. And they were literally maroon dwelling guerrillas who'd spent *a hundred and fifty years* fighting a triracial war alongside escaped slaves and Indians against local slave owners.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In short, the state was the last to join (after it was completely surrounded by Confederate states. Five months after neighboring South Carolina, a month after Virginia), had high desertion rates on it's soldiers (1/4 of all Confederate Army deserters were from NC- the CSA government complained heavily about this), and in the one election it had during the CSA's existence, the opposition Conservative party's governor won by 90% against the Confederate party candidate. They had 15,000 soldiers (2/3rds of them white) go and join the Union army, which they didn't even share a border with.

The Piedmont Triad's real civil war legacy
 
SeptimusMagisto said:
Saying "The Civil War was about slavery" really dumbs down a complex issue and ignores a lot of other stuff that was going on at the time. But saying "The Civil War wasn't about slavery" is utterly wrong to the point of being laughable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But all the complexity ultimately derived from slavery.

The differences that the south had with the north was because the south was an agririan slave state. Their economic life was dominated entirely by slavery. All the rights they cared about were about defending and perpetuating slavery. The south would not have existed the way it did without slavery, and wouldn't have the friction points with the north. There's few major reasons but slavery that the north had so much more industry than the south.
 
Largely I agree to a point though would likely still have been economic and cultural friction as even taking slavery out of the mix the south was a largely agriculturally and rural region with fewer smaller cities and likely would have remained so even in alternative world where slavery didn't exist there while the north was industrialized and urban with larger cities and the sort of taxes and tariffs that favored the the north east industry and trade didn't really favor other places. You just wouldn't have the rather toxic nature of slavery thrown into the mix.
 
Even assuming that the South would have been as heavily agricultural without slavery, and would have a similar early economic dominance without it, and a similar inequality of wealth - then sure, there would have been ecnomic friction between North and South too. Urban Industrial vs. Rural Agrarian is a common source of political friction.

Such friction basically never leads to secession and war.
In fact, I'd challenge people to find a single instance where rural agrarian parts of a country declare war upon the urban industrial parts. Sure, there's plenty of uprisings against the current government, but that doesn't come with the goal of making the agrarian parts independent unless there's also some other identity issue (such as being a racial minority) at hand.

So really, slavery was the cause no matter how you look at it.
It was also arguably the enabler of the war - or at least, was so vital for the political structure of the south that ultimately enabled the war that you can't imagine it without slavery.


Oh, and next time someone tells you the War of Southern Aggression was really all about states rights, tell them "sure, the North was sick of the South forcing their own laws onto them".
Because that's arguably more accurate than the usual way that's used.
 
imnotamoocow said:
I have been looking through a series of articles and have recently been studying the beginning of the U.S civil war. During looking through an article I found myself coming across a repetitive cycle about how this is a war about slavery. But as you read further into the war there seem to be two different sides of the argument, the first one the most commonly referred to is that slavery started the war due to tensions between the south and the north over it. But on the other hand, the second argument is that it was the more general difference in lifestyles and forms of government that caused the war.


The slavery argument hinges on the idea that it was the tensions through the election after the Bleeding Kansas civil war and the fugitive slave act had caused both the north and the south to be more involved in the others slave constitution.

The Lifestyle and government argument argues that slavery was only the spark that lit as the north and the south fought over the differences in government, whether you work for the government or your own community; and as they fought for the differences in agriculture and industry.

What do you think?
Was it Slavery or more generally the differences between the north and the south?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Of course it was about slavery. I'm glad the north won and freed the slaves.
 
Well, to be technical, the entire affair was over State's Rights. One of these rights happened to be slavery, but other things that came up involved interstate commerce and northern monopolies. There were a lot of Southerners who saw the writing on the wall and tried to get some industry rolling, but the Northern monopolies crushed these industrial attempts. At that point, a lot of people doubled down on slavery, and shit hit the fan.
 
7734 said:
Well, to be technical, the entire affair was over State's Rights. One of these rights happened to be slavery, but other things that came up involved interstate commerce and northern monopolies. There were a lot of Southerners who saw the writing on the wall and tried to get some industry rolling, but the Northern monopolies crushed these industrial attempts. At that point, a lot of people doubled down on slavery, and shit hit the fan.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

'States rights' was a buzzword at the time, banded around but entirely hollow in practice.

The South highly objected to the North using states rights in ways that didn't support slavery (the Fugitive Slave Act was a deliberate attempt to curtail state's rights to keep escape slaves). They also fought hard to make sure that new states in the Westward expansion had at least one slave state for every free state- even if the people in said new territories were not especially interested. They had no attachment to the idea of states rights as anything more than an excuse- they wanted to impose slavery and where they couldn't impose it's direct practice, they wanted to at least force laws enforcing it's recognition and the return of any slaves who managed to get free, whether other states liked it or not.
 
Q99 said:
Point.

It's just worth noting that was *always* it's purpose. There weren't southerners who were anti slavery but fought for 'states rights.' There were southerners who said 'states rights' because it sounded more acceptable to them while they were fighting for slavery.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And if i remember right, in many cases the push to rewrite history and say it wasn't about slavery led to a number of letters to the editor to various newspapers by confederate soldiers being angry that people were trying to ignore how, in their minds, the only justification for the war was in fact slavery, so... :p
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top