Rhode Island: obviously racist because of old colonial history.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The right to pass their own laws regarding the legality of slavery was the main one.

This was also a large economic issue. Everyone wanted cheap cotton and tobacco, but no one wanted to realize the ugly underbelly involved. The right of secession was also a player. The battle lines were ultimately drawn between free and slave states.

Oh, yeah. The economic factor was definitely the driving reason behind slavery itself.

My family owned slaves (little-known underbelly of black land ownership in the south) and, for that matter, white land owners often had white, native, and Asian slaves as well as black ones. Slavery was an economic and class establishment, not, at its outset, a racial one. There are some very complex factors behind the gradual racialization of slavery, probably best left to another thread.

[Iason Ouabache]

The right to pass their own laws regarding the legality of slavery was the main one.

This was also a large economic issue. Everyone wanted cheap cotton and tobacco, but no one wanted to realize the ugly underbelly involved. The right of secession was also a player. The battle lines were ultimately drawn between free and slave states.

So, it wasn't about slavery it was about the state's right to pass laws about slavery?   

[Honey]

The right to pass their own laws regarding the legality of slavery was the main one.

This was also a large economic issue. Everyone wanted cheap cotton and tobacco, but no one wanted to realize the ugly underbelly involved. The right of secession was also a player. The battle lines were ultimately drawn between free and slave states.

So, it wasn't about slavery it was about the state's right to pass laws about slavery?   

This is where the sophistry & sour grapes comes in.

No longer interested in this one either.  I said my piece.

[Cain]

The right to pass their own laws regarding the legality of slavery was the main one.

This was also a large economic issue. Everyone wanted cheap cotton and tobacco, but no one wanted to realize the ugly underbelly involved. The right of secession was also a player. The battle lines were ultimately drawn between free and slave states.

So, it wasn't about slavery it was about the state's right to pass laws about slavery?   

Slavery was enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.  Even if an individual state had wanted to abolish slavery, further down the line, it couldn't have.

[Suu]

The right to pass their own laws regarding the legality of slavery was the main one.

This was also a large economic issue. Everyone wanted cheap cotton and tobacco, but no one wanted to realize the ugly underbelly involved. The right of secession was also a player. The battle lines were ultimately drawn between free and slave states.

So, it wasn't about slavery it was about the state's right to pass laws about slavery?   

It was far more in depth than that. States wanted the right to control taxation, wages, work hours, anything having to do with labor, and yes, slavery was included ON BOTH SIDES OF THE MASON-DIXON. These issues ripped Congress in half for quite some time, even prior to secession.

Abolition was sort of a touchy-feely subject nationwide, including the North, where slaves were still being used (albeit illegally in some places) to run machines in factories.

Long story short, it came more down to the politics between industrial urban sprawls and rural farmland, their rights of law-making and various tax breaks. The Union used the abolition of slavery as their chief platform of wartime propaganda, which, and I quote Richter, would have riled every 20-something hipster in Boston with a rifle and sent them to get on their blues.

Honey, there is a wealth of information at your fingertips, and I'm sorry that you may have been misinformed. If you have any questions or would like any recommendations as to literature outside of a high school history book, I'd love to point you in the right direction.

[Cain]

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

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. 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. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=254

Confederates during the Civil War had no problem whatsoever in associating their cause with the protection of slavery and a system of white supremacy which they thought was inherent in the Confederate world order. The Confederates of 1861-65 were much more honest about the importance of slavery than are the neo-Confederates of today.

In a famous address [known to historians as the "Cornerstone Speech"], the vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, said in 1861 that "slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy." And as late as 1865, Robert E. Lee, who's often cited by neo-Confederates as an opponent of slavery, claimed that while blacks and whites were together in the South, their best relationship would be that of master and slave.

A great many Southerners were directly or indirectly involved in slavery — they were either slaveholders, members of slaveholding families, or involved in business enterprises that depended upon slavery for their prosperity.

Some neo-Confederates talk about differing federal policies toward the North and the South, but again those federal policies — especially if they concern the South — have to do with the support of slavery, the acquisition of new territory which would be open to slaveholders, a tariff policy which favored the North.

Racism against African-Americans was a national problem, not a regional problem. The white South could never have gotten away with as much as it did in terms of white supremacy had there not been a large number of white Northerners who supported racist policies.

But now neo-Confederates say, "Well, you guys were racist, too, and in fact the real racism is in the North." And at the same time, they say, "There is no racism in the South." Well, you really can't have it both ways.

But again, the war is fought not over racial equality — at least among American whites — but over slavery, the political advantages that white Southerners had because of slavery. The war is about slavery and its political and economic impact on American society, not just Southern society.

Southerners are very much aware when they support secession in 1860-61 that they are seceding to protect slavery and white supremacy — and that that is something that should interest not only slaveholders but also non-slaveholding whites.

The neo-Confederates construct an "other" of mainstream academic scholarship that supposedly says that the North fought to end slavery and that the South was uniquely racist. But you don't find a lot of mainstream scholars who embrace any of that.

In fact, most mainstream academics embrace the idea that racism was an American problem, and that Union soldiers went to war in 1861 primarily to save the Union, not to destroy slavery. In other words, the historical stereotype that the neo-Confederates war against basically doesn't exist.

[Honey]

The right to pass their own laws regarding the legality of slavery was the main one.

This was also a large economic issue. Everyone wanted cheap cotton and tobacco, but no one wanted to realize the ugly underbelly involved. The right of secession was also a player. The battle lines were ultimately drawn between free and slave states.

So, it wasn't about slavery it was about the state's right to pass laws about slavery?   

It was far more in depth than that. States wanted the right to control taxation, wages, work hours, anything having to do with labor, and yes, slavery was included ON BOTH SIDES OF THE MASON-DIXON. These issues ripped Congress in half for quite some time, even prior to secession.

Abolition was sort of a touchy-feely subject nationwide, including the North, where slaves were still being used (albeit illegally in some places) to run machines in factories.

Long story short, it came more down to the politics between industrial urban sprawls and rural farmland, their rights of law-making and various tax breaks. The Union used the abolition of slavery as their chief platform of wartime propaganda, which, and I quote Richter, would have riled every 20-something hipster in Boston with a rifle and sent them to get on their blues.

Honey, there is a wealth of information at your fingertips, and I'm sorry that you may have been misinformed. If you have any questions or would like any recommendations as to literature outside of a high school history book, I'd love to point you in the right direction.

[Adios]

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.

2. States versus federal rights.

Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

[Honey]

Player Queen: 
Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,
If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!

Player King:
'Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,
My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile
The tedious day with sleep.

Player Queen:
Sleep rock thy brain,
And never come mischance between us twain!

Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?

Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

(ok sorry - just couldn't resist)

Suu?  I'm not interested in turning anyone into a cliché, alright? 

You simply can't be surprised some people are not going to agree with you on this?  & I fail to comprehend what a person's ancestors, descent, genealogy or whatever has to do with whether or not they agree with you?

I, personally, know very little about my genealogy & don't know why you seem to think this comes into play here (in the present day, that is).  My experiences & observations do not equate.  If this means anything, I'm dark & can pass for multitudes, people often think I'm from where they're from.  If someone asks, I share what I do know, the thing is, I don't give a flying fuck one way or another.

I, personally, don't agree with you & I'm not quite sure how genealogy comes into play here.  Let's just leave it alone for now, ok?  I appreciate you took the time to elaborate.  Thanks & respect. 

[Requia ☣]

States wanted the right to control taxation, wages, work hours, anything having to do with labor,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the states already have that at the time?

[Suu]

Player Queen: 
Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,
If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!

Player King:
'Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,
My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile
The tedious day with sleep.

Player Queen:
Sleep rock thy brain,
And never come mischance between us twain!

Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?

Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

(ok sorry - just couldn't resist)

Suu?  I'm not interested in turning anyone into a cliché, alright? 

You simply can't be surprised some people are not going to agree with you on this?  & I fail to comprehend what a person's ancestors, descent, genealogy or whatever has to do with whether or not they agree with you?

I, personally, know very little about my genealogy & don't know why you seem to think this comes into play here (in the present day, that is).  My experiences & observations do not equate.  If this means anything, I'm dark & can pass for multitudes, people often think I'm from where they're from.  If someone asks, I share what I do know, the thing is, I don't give a flying fuck one way or another.

I, personally, don't agree with you & I'm not quite sure how genealogy comes into play here.  Let's just leave it alone for now, ok?  I appreciate you took the time to elaborate.  Thanks & respect. 

I'm not saying anything about your genealogy. You're reading too much into this. Nigel just wanted to point out a neat fact about her family.

I simply started this thread because I thought the news story was idiotic. I pointed out that the word 'plantation' is unnecessarily scarred in the minds of people due to historical connotations, and you took it to the next step. I don't intend for everyone to agree with me, shit, there's people on Amazon.com arguing over whether or not ancient history is real for Christ's sake, and there's enough controversy with modern history that I should have even known better to attempt to present a valid argument for the Civil War BESIDES slavery.

I'm sorry I hit a nerve with you. Believe your historical facts, and I'll believe mine.

States wanted the right to control taxation, wages, work hours, anything having to do with labor,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the states already have that at the time?

Not as much as compared to what they have now. There were later amendments that allowed further lawmaking.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

My friend called me a Wop, so I retaliated and called him a Gee. Then he punched me. 

wtf is a gee?

[Honey]

I got banned from leaving a comment on that page.  All I wrote was:

$$ misspent to impeach for a blow job? A little further on down the road, we don't think twice (imagine DUH nile) in swallowing lies re: non-existent WMDs leading to wars where torture, violence & much collateral damage is brushed off as hordes of good ole boys being patriotic? Long story short – Quit your whining!  Change the name, it's dumb. Aside from the Freudian illusion to the smallest state insisting on the longest name, that is. Or keep your cheap new whine distilled from sour grapes.   

Honey, traveling thru

[Suu]

My friend called me a Wop, so I retaliated and called him a Gee. Then he punched me. 

wtf is a gee?

Portuguese.

[0]

First of all:

Honey. Oh my shite. enough is enough. Really, I can only remain silent for so long before the dull biting pain of your stupidity begins to rot away at the tissue of my cerebral cortex. Honestly, it almost feels like my brain is going to turn into Yorkshire pudding and slowly ebb away through my foramen magnum, out my mouth, and on to my keyboard when i read your horrifically Mal-formed ideas of American history.

Honestly, I can cull much better VOLUMES of information from the pages of a GOLDEN BOOK! Remember Golden Books? Pokey Little Puppy, Mother Goose, even Goodnight House!

I apologize, truly apologize, for the volatile nature of this post. But if I have to abide sullying my computer screen with another one of your posts aimed at sating your own need for seeing your words in digital print, then I feel that a toaster bath is imminent on my part.

Your posts give me life cancer in a way that I have never known before.

Truly, a malignant blight on the face of this fair message board.

Yours Forever,

General Seumais Stuart.

Secondly,

Suu,
We prefer to be called portch-monkeys.

Thanks.