Well if you can find an accurate account of how many people in the south actually owned slaves...
and for the farmers that didn't... any competition for selling their excess crops, was large agriculture plantations.
So less than 3 % of the southerners owned slaves and most of those were plantation owners with large numbers of slaves.
So do you really think that most southerner farms left their homes, farms and family to go put their lives on the line so that the real rich people and their chief competitor for their goods could own slaves?
Would you?
Now ask yourself, was the Civil War about slavery? Might have been for some of the rich slave owners, who I am sure controlled large influences in state governments... but for the other 97% of those that answered the call... I really doubt they put it all on the line, to include their lives, so that Rich Plantation owners could own slaves.
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
The great majority of Southerners owned no slave. States Rights being the major reason but to be sure Mr Stevens was a slave owner and more than likely it was a reason (states having a right to make their own decision) for him to support slavery or the right for his state to make the determination.
Clear as mud, ain't it? 😎
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
Judicial Review brought the Union to that point. The Fed court overturned South Carolinas "Negro Seamen Act." South Carolina's answer was if the States gave the Federal Government limited and enumerated powers, how then can they overturn a law passed by a State.
Well if you can find an accurate account of how many people in the south actually owned slaves...
and for the farmers that didn't... any competition for selling their excess crops, was large agriculture plantations.
So less than 3 % of the southerners owned slaves and most of those were plantation owners with large numbers of slaves.
So do you really think that most southerner farms left their homes, farms and family to go put their lives on the line so that the real rich people and their chief competitor for their goods could own slaves?
Would you?
Now ask yourself, was the Civil War about slavery? Might have been for some of the rich slave owners, who I am sure controlled large influences in state governments... but for the other 97% of those that answered the call... I really doubt they put it all on the line, to include their lives, so that Rich Plantation owners could own slaves.
Yes, but aren't most to all wars caused by older wealthy powerful men, and the younger men then do the fighting and dying? Not saying the war of northern aggression was about slavery, just what causes most wars.
You know, it really doesn't make any difference what the reason was........the fact is that states joined the Union voluntarily, and they had the right to leave the same way. Ole Honest Abe and the Republicans were far more interested about having power over the South, than they were about anything else, and that includes their supposed reasons for not letting the South go in peace........preservation of the Union and the abolishment of slavery.
I've never read this before. For you Southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery, how can you justify your stance in light of his words?
P
In 1861, when Stephens made this speech, the general consensus among the majority of people North or South, East or West, was that the Negro was not the equal of the White man. It was not limited to the states, either, but in Europe as well. Africa was still a wild and barbarous place, with very little known about it or it's people. The Great Emancipator, Lincoln, viewed the Negro as being intellectually inferior to Whites, and wanted the ex slaves sent back to Africa. Yet, as is usually the case, it is only the Southern view about Negro slaves that seem to matter.
I've never read this before. For you Southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery, how can you justify your stance in light of his words?
P
In 1861, when Stephens made this speech, the general consensus among the majority of people North or South, East or West, was that the Negro was not the equal of the White man. It was not limited to the states, either, but in Europe as well. Africa was still a wild and barbarous place, with very little known about it or it's people. The Great Emancipator, Lincoln, viewed the Negro as being intellectually inferior to Whites, and wanted the ex slaves sent back to Africa. Yet, as is usually the case, it is only the Southern view about Negro slaves that seem to matter.
Facts don't matter either. Statistically, blacks ARE intellectually inferior. The great unspoken truth. I was once told that people who feel inferior, usually are. Found it to be true, a lot of the time.
Something I've often wondered is did the northern state's governments want slavery abolished because they truly believed in their hearts it was cruel and inhumane and freeing the slaves the only right and Godly thing to do or was it more because of political and/or economic reason?
In Clauadia Dale Goldin’s article “The Economics of Emancipation,” she argues the different gradual emancipation processes that were put into effect for many of the northern states. The article argues the idea that because slaves were considered property, that a complete emancipation without compensation was considered illegal. One of the gradual emancipation ideas was the thought that because slavery was believed to only last one more generation that male slaves would be considered free when they turn 28 and females would be considered free at 25. The idea that the females would be emancipated earlier than males was that the females were more productive than their male counterparts during their teenage years. This form of gradual emancipation also made the demand for female slaves decrease because their value from breeding capabilities has become zero because the next generation of children are considered free. Another form of gradual emancipation was that along with the gradual freeing of slaves the slave owners would pay the children of slaves $3.50 per month for public care of children that would otherwise be orphaned. These form of gradual emancipation had both positive and negative effects. One of the positive factors of gradual emancipation is that it was not only helping free the slaves, but it was not too costly to the slave owners. This lack of cost would make these ideas of gradual emancipation more enticing to slave owners. One of the main problems with this gradual emancipation is that if it was expected that gradual emancipating was happening, slave owners would attempt to sell their slaves while they still had them. This happened many times in New York for example. In 1799 when the slave owners expected the gradual emancipation to happen 12,000 slaves were freed by emancipation, but some 24,000 were sold to the south. The slave owners were not willing to just free their slaves, they needed to be compensated in some fashion so they sold their slaves to the south.(Goldin, 70) In addition to the problem of smuggling, if these gradual abolition laws were passed this would encourage more rigorous use of the slaves while they were still available. For example if they would require one more generation to work, then that generation would be worked harder than before. Now the question begs why didn’t the south want to attempt to input a gradual emancipation? One reason is that the south could not sell their slaves if they were expecting the emancipation of the slaves to happen Some would argue that the use of slavery was “an important duty for the south, part of their ‘unending task of race discipline.” Many economists like Lewis Gray and Kenneth Stampp have contested this view saying that the southern plantation argriculture was just as much a economic active product of the United States as any other business.
Quote
Possibility to Avoid Civil War
In Claudia Dale Goldin’s article “The Economics of Emancipation she argues the thoughts on whether the civil war should have been fought or should there of been alternative thoughts to end slavery. The north knew that gradual emancipation would not work unless there was considerable money spent to reimburse the southern owners for the slaves that they have purchased. She also argued that had the north and south correctly assessed the costs of the Civil War then there was a strong possibility that the war would have not been fought and there would have been discussions on how to buy the slaves back. Her article states that “In all probability, the major reason that the war was fought instead of there being a political settlement was that its costs were incorrectly anticipated. The north was obviously surprised by the tenacity of the south… neither side thought the war would last more than 2 years….As the war dragged on, Lincoln expressed opinion that the costs of the war were dreadfully and surprisingly high that slavery could be ‘bought out’ at a cheaper price….less than one half days cost of this war would pay for all of the slaves in Delaware…Less than 87 days cost of war would pay for all in Delaware, Maryland, D.C., Kentucky, and Missouri”(Goldin, 83). It is obvious that neither side was ready to enter war and neither side anticipated that it would cost so much. The south hoped that Great Britain would have helped pay for the war and the north believed that this would be a short war that would not last very long. It seemed that although the north had many ideas of gradual emancipation and abolition ideas of slavery none of these were seriously considered until 1861.The Union did not look to other former slavocracies to help them with their slave problem.
Not saying the war of northern aggression was about slavery
I hear this all the time, but when the VP of the Confederacy says it is, how can we think otherwise?
To the
P
Imagine that a party which controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress passed a law levying a large tax on every barrel of oil, and every dollar of royalty payments, and that he He proceeds from the tax were dedicated to mass transit in only cities of the Northeast.
If Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana were to secede and a war resulted, would you claim the war was about OIL? Would you expect the citizens of those states to fight and die for "big oil", or would they fight to preserve their livelihood.
That's basically what the tariffs did to the South.
The State of Virginia, tried to abolish slavery in 1808. Plantations that had any were pretty much in the South East part of the State.
The agreement was the state would pay the slave owners for their slaves freedom and then the slave could stay to work and be paid or leave.
Problem occurred that when slaves freedom was bought by the State, the slave was then kidnapped and taken into North Carolina where they were legally sold by their former owner there... who would then 'buy' a North Carolina slave and bring them back.
This was being done, over and over until it was stopped due to almost bankrupting the State's Coffers.
They tried to repeat it again in the 1830s, with close to the same results.
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
For you Southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery, how can you justify your stance in light of his words?
They can't but will lie about it anyway. The South was demoncrap long before it was "conservative". Old habits die hard and usually not at all. The original revisionist history.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
Its pretty hard to justify much about that era. How do people who look down on the South justify the fact that what was done to them was illegal and unconstitutional at the time? The founding fathers punted on the whole slavery issue 100 years earlier, leaving it up to the states, in order to get the South on board with the revolution, otherwise there would have been no United STATES in the first place. As late as 1850, slavery was given constitutional protection under the fugitive slave act. As far as secession goes, some pretty heavy hitters including Thomas Jefferson, were not against it, not to mention some Northern states threatened to secede earlier over various issues.
Why did people in the South who did not own slaves fight? Because in those days people saw themselves as citizens OF THEIR STATE, not as citizens of "The United States". Take Robert E. Lee for example. He turned down command of the Federal army because Virginia went the other way. He saw himself as a VIRGINIAN not an "American". Because these people's first allegiance was to their states, people of today who call them "traitors" are showing their ignorance of history, which quite frankly, they came by honestly as COMMIES have been running the public screwels at least for the lifetime of most people today.
Why does Robert E. Lee deserve a statue? Above all else, he did as much to patch the thing back together as anyone. Likewise, the Yankee generals, Grant, Sherman, at Appomattox were incredibly magnanimous for the times.....as was Lincoln. If only that IDIOT Booth had not shot Lincoln. We can sit back 150 years later, after times have changed so much, and take potshots at any of them depending on what you believe or think you believe and evidently we can sit by and let COMMIES destroy our history.
"Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants". --- William Penn
I've never read this before. For you Southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery, how can you justify your stance in light of his words?
Let's establish first of all that my ancestors at the time of the American Civil War lived in Pennsylvania, or were still in Europe.
Now a history lesson for you. It is not contested that slavery was not an issue. It was an issue since the founding of the Constitution. The only reason it was not addressed in 1783 is that the country need a document that all 13 States would ratify. That took the issue off the table.
Next, the institution of slavery, by itself was not the issue that caused people enough angst to pick arms. The issue that was important enough, because the agrarian South needed a labor force prior to the Industrial Revolution. Slavery as an institution goes back as far as mankind. The Egyptians, the Romans were especially adept at it. By the19th Century, it was an institution that was becoming extinct as the Industrial Revolution began making it economically obsolete, much less the moral grounds that spreading democracy stood upon.
You want to pick a part of the A.H. Stevens speech that centers in on the issue that was important enough to split the country? Look at this part:
Quote
The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch “of the accursed soil.” Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave
There is your explanation of the crux of the problem. It goes back to taxes. The States of the Industrial North on one hand condemned the practice of slavery, yet had no problems profiting from fruits of slave labor through taxation. This was the issue bold enough to cause a splint in the country. The Industrial North imposing its will on the agrarian South.
This does not mean that slavery was of no importance, it was. However, the number of Whites that owned slaves in the South was hardly universal. As a matter of fact, in the mountain regions, slavery was very rare. No need because agricultural was not on an industrial basis. Yet, plenty of mountain men went to fight for the South. If slavery was THE issue, then why bother if your family had no slaves, had no need for slaves, and nobody within a 3 day hike of you had them?
The issue was the attack on the way of life in the South, and being excessively taxed. These were the issues big enough to cause a war. Now, was slave labor an integral part of that way of life? Sure, it was. Did the North go to war exclusively to abolish slavery? No, absolutely not! The North went to war to preserve the Union first and foremost. Abolishing slavery was a byproduct of defeating the South, and a way to cripple the economy and punish those that attempted to break up the Union. Reconstruction was all about punishing the South. In war, you have winners and losers. Winner make the rules. Reconstruction was severe and the memories lingered. I moved to the South in the early 1970's. I was considered a "Yankee", and the older generation let me know about regularly. Most of it in fun, but it showed that even 100 years after the war, there was still some bitterness not over the loss of slavery, but from the severity of Reconstruction.
Maybe you'd like a first hand account: 13:20 mark is where you want to go.
"The Democrat Party looks like Titanic survivors. Partying and celebrating one moment, and huddled in lifeboats freezing the next". Hatari 2017
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
