The civil war, states rights, and slavery.

[Requia ☣]

I've been digging through primary sources today, looking to build a case that the south seceded more because of the slavery issue than anything else.  I am however worried that the people publishing the articles might be cherry picking.  So if anybody would like to recommend I read some things *before* I go and make an idiot of myself the next time the topic comes up, I'd appreciate it.

[Doktor Howl]

I've been digging through primary sources today, looking to build a case that the south seceded more because of the slavery issue than anything else. 

South Carolina seceded why, again?

[Elder Iptuous]

I listened to a lecture series on the civil war that had an entire lecture devoted to that.  There's plenty of quotes from such notables as Jefferson Davis that the war was most definitely about slavery.  At least until the war was over.  Then it was states rights.  I'll try to dig up the quotes....

[Doktor Howl]

In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. In response to the Republican victory in that election, seven states declared their secession from the Union before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

[Requia ☣]

I've been digging through primary sources today, looking to build a case that the south seceded more because of the slavery issue than anything else. 

South Carolina seceded why, again?

You know, the South Carolina declaration of succession is one of the documents I've been going over.  I'll let you read it, I'm not really interested in having a debate until I've got more information.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

There was way more than slavery or states rights involved. All of them, though tended to circle around the huge gap between the South and North in their evolution. The North became more urban and Factory oriented, while the South remained less urban and more focused on Plantations, Farms etc. This led to disagreements on Slavery, taxation of imports and the confusion over where State Rights got trumped by Federal Rights. In short their Black Iron Prisons became so dissimilar that confrontation was probably inevitable.

Some pertinent Tax issues from Wikipedia:

Tariffs contributed to sectionalism between the North and the South. The Tariff of 1824  increased tariffs in order to protect American industry in the face of cheaper imported commodities such as iron products, wool and cotton textiles, and agricultural goods from England. This tariff was the first in which the sectional interests of the North and the South truly came into conflict because the South advocated lower tariffs in order to take advantage of tariff reciprocity from England and other countries that purchased raw agricultural materials from the South.[3]

The Tariff of 1828, also known as the Tariff of Abominations, and the Tariff of 1832 accelerated sectionalism between the North and the South. For a brief moment in 1832, South Carolina made vague threats to leave the Union over the tariff issue.[4] In 1833, to ease North-South relations, Congress lowered the tariffs.[4] In the 1850s, the South gained greater influence over tariff policy and made subsequent reductions.[5]

In 1861, just prior to the Civil War, Congress enacted the Morrill Tariff, which applied high rates and inaugurated a period of relatively continuous trade protection in the United States that lasted until the Underwood Tariff of 1913. The schedule of the Morrill Tariff and its two successor bills were retained long after the end of the Civil War.[6]

States Rights weren't discussed as much before the War, because it appears that they were assumed. The abolitionist Lysander Spooner laid out the common thought of the Day in his work "NO Treason" where he argued that The US had been a group of States that freely associated with the Union and States believed that they could freely leave the Union.

Also, you might look at some of Lincoln's letters during the War (and just before) where he promised that those who returned to or supported the Union could keep their slaves.

Slavery was a driving factor... but there was a lot more going on. Kinda like the recent mess in Iraq, we could argue that WMD's or Bad Intel, or 9/11 was the driving factor, but there was, in reality, a lot more going on... not the least of which was Bush's own personal agenda.

[Suu]

Do you want me to bump the thread that Honey attempted to derail in which I talked about the reasons for the Civil War? I Think I have sources in there, but I know my argument was more about states rights than slavery. Even Robert E Lee (Or maybe it was Davis, I dunno off the top of my head...one of them 2 crackah-ass-crackahs) has been quoted that he believed all the slaves should have been released before the start of the war.

But for the most part, Ratatosk has it right. The industrial North VS the agricultural South was more of the main catalyst, and then everything fit in from there. Slavery was not the PRIMARY reason, but it sure as hell had it's place in the top.

[Requia ☣]

Isn't industrial north vs agricultural south pretty much the reason why slavery was split along those lines?  And yeah, bump it if you can find it.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Slavery was a States' Rights issue in 1860. The fact that it was a terrible institution doesn't change that. The States viewed it as a States' Rights issue, and that is the grounds they used legally in declaring their secession from the Union. South Carolina's declaration was obviously centered on slavery, but it was on slavery as a States' Rights issue, not on the morality or propriety of slavery itself.

Personally, I think the Federal Government was overstepping its bounds in moving toward the abolition of slavery, just like it now is comically out of proportion to its Constitutional role in this country. It may be that that is the only way America can really function as a cohesive society, but it doesn't change the basic fact that the Federal Government is way out of line with respect to the Constitution in a strictly legal sense.

This is the same argument that Conservatives have against Liberals, and that I actually agree with to some extent: social change is inefficient and causes all kinds of political and social turmoil when it is instituted by edict from the top down, rather than cultivated from the bottom up. Slavery was one of the first big example of that - forcing the abolition of slavery ended up creating the KKK, segregation, Jim Crow, and hostility and resentment of the Federal Government for generations among people who perceived themselves as the victims of "Northern Aggression."

The same goes for issues such as gay rights today. We'd be much better off targeting the culture and eliminating the need for legislation by changing the character of the country at its root, than by decreeing from a judicial pulpit or progressive legislature that it is now unacceptable to discriminate against gays. It is unacceptable, but you're not going to convince anybody of that by simply writing laws that spontaneously declare them to be villains. You'll actually reinforce bigotry that way, since it's a direct assault on a general assumption. It takes longer to do it the right way, but the results are more stable and more durable than simply passing a law and pretending that alone resolves the problem.

So basically I'm on the side of the CSA in Civil War discussions - not because I agree with what they were fighting for but because I disagree with what the Union was trying to do (eliminate the States' right to self-determination).

[Doktor Howl]

The same goes for issues such as gay rights today. We'd be much better off targeting the culture and eliminating the need for legislation by changing the character of the country at its root, than by decreeing from a judicial pulpit or progressive legislature that it is now unacceptable to discriminate against gays. It is unacceptable, but you're not going to convince anybody of that by simply writing laws that spontaneously declare them to be villains. You'll actually reinforce bigotry that way, since it's a direct assault on a general assumption. It takes longer to do it the right way, but the results are more stable and more durable than simply passing a law and pretending that alone resolves the problem.

Horseshit.  Legislation is what ended Jim Crow, not asking the racists nicely.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yes, the South felt they needed slaves in order to run their economy. The North no longer needed slavery so the idea that it was bad, had time to mature. In the South, perception got in the way of thinking.

The rise of the abolition movement was alarming to the South and the barring of new territories to allow slavery was (in the minds of the slave owners) a violation of the 10th Amendment. However, the direct impact of taxes and protectionism were an immediate pain that many Southerners felt... and that had more to do with the North protecting their factory made goods, rather than slavery.

Also, much of what vexati0n said.

[Suu]

Isn't industrial north vs agricultural south pretty much the reason why slavery was split along those lines?  And yeah, bump it if you can find it.

Yes. It was under the umbrella of State's rights.

This isn't my historical area of expertise, so I'm going to try to stay out of any impending argument since I won't be able to defend it properly, but I'll still bump the thread.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

The same goes for issues such as gay rights today. We'd be much better off targeting the culture and eliminating the need for legislation by changing the character of the country at its root, than by decreeing from a judicial pulpit or progressive legislature that it is now unacceptable to discriminate against gays. It is unacceptable, but you're not going to convince anybody of that by simply writing laws that spontaneously declare them to be villains. You'll actually reinforce bigotry that way, since it's a direct assault on a general assumption. It takes longer to do it the right way, but the results are more stable and more durable than simply passing a law and pretending that alone resolves the problem.

Horseshit.  Legislation is what ended Jim Crow, not asking the racists nicely.

Legislation ended Jim Crow (after it created a market for it in the first place), but it didn't change anybody's attitude. Only after years of being stuck with a system they resented did people end up accepting it. But even now, many people see that not as "progress" but as "aggression." And even if it isn't said so outright, it is also a big part of what drives Social Conservative stubbornness today - there is a sentiment that they "won't let that happen again." If the culture had been changed at a grassroots level before the legislation was passed, then there wouldn't be such an intense distrust of everything the Government does among social conservatives today.

[Doktor Howl]

Personally, I think the Federal Government was overstepping its bounds in moving toward the abolition of slavery, just like it now is comically out of proportion to its Constitutional role in this country.

Sure.  Unless you, you know, read the preamble.

[Doktor Howl]

Legislation ended Jim Crow (after it created a market for it in the first place), but it didn't change anybody's attitude.

Who gives a fuck?  They can think whatever they like, they will anyway (anyone who has seen a teabagger sign with Obama on it knows that).

But is your argument "No, Reverend King, you need to stay on the back of the bus until we can convince these rednecks to play nice."?

Is that your argument towards Gays today?