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.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 11, 2010, 08:13:52 PM
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?
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....
QuoteIn 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
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 08:14:34 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 11, 2010, 08:13:52 PM
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
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:
QuoteTariffs 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.
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.
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.
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).
Quote from: vexati0n on October 11, 2010, 09:22:01 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 11, 2010, 09:17:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on October 11, 2010, 09:22:01 PM
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.
Quote from: vexati0n on October 11, 2010, 09:22:01 PM
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.
Quote from: vexati0n on October 11, 2010, 09:29:35 PM
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?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on October 11, 2010, 09:22:01 PM
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.
Well, actually the Supreme Court ruling on cases is what did that. From 1912 up through Brown vs Board of Edu in 54... The Civil Rights Act didn't show up until '64.
And this, IMO is the way that it should have been handled. The Supreme Court is there specifically to protect the rights of all Americans and it did so. The later Civil Rights Act was useful, but not AS USEFUL as the many SC rulings that came before it. However, I do think that lasting change has to come from social change, not law. Law makes an act criminal, but it doesn't stop people's behaviors. As vex points out, for at least some Americans the law actually becomes a rallying cry for the opposition. If instead, civil rights had been achieved socially, it would have taken longer, but probably ended with less fallout.
Thread bumped. Best of luck with your paper.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 11, 2010, 09:34:04 PM
Well, actually the Supreme Court ruling on cases is what did that. From 1912 up through Brown vs Board of Edu in 54... The Civil Rights Act didn't show up until '64.
And this, IMO is the way that it should have been handled. The Supreme Court is there specifically to protect the rights of all Americans and it did so. The later Civil Rights Act was useful, but not AS USEFUL as the many SC rulings that came before it. However, I do think that lasting change has to come from social change, not law. Law makes an act criminal, but it doesn't stop people's behaviors. As vex points out, for at least some Americans the law actually becomes a rallying cry for the opposition. If instead, civil rights had been achieved socially, it would have taken longer, but probably ended with less fallout.
There were preceding civil rights acts:
Civil Rights Act of 1866, extending the rights of emancipated slaves
Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act
Civil Rights Act of 1875, prohibiting discrimination in "public accommodations"; found unconstitutional in 1883
Civil Rights Act of 1957, establishing the Civil Rights Commission
Civil Rights Act of 1960, establishing federal inspection of local voter registration polls
Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places
Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act
Civil Rights Act of 1991, providing the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introducing the possibility of emotional distress damages, while limiting the amount that a jury could award
But my point remains the same...Either through legislation or the courts, rights are established. You don't do it by asking the racists/homophobes/etc to please play nice.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 11, 2010, 09:34:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on October 11, 2010, 09:22:01 PM
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.
Well, actually the Supreme Court ruling on cases is what did that. From 1912 up through Brown vs Board of Edu in 54... The Civil Rights Act didn't show up until '64.
And this, IMO is the way that it should have been handled. The Supreme Court is there specifically to protect the rights of all Americans and it did so. The later Civil Rights Act was useful, but not AS USEFUL as the many SC rulings that came before it. However, I do think that lasting change has to come from social change, not law. Law makes an act criminal, but it doesn't stop people's behaviors. As vex points out, for at least some Americans the law actually becomes a rallying cry for the opposition. If instead, civil rights had been achieved socially, it would have taken longer, but probably ended with less fallout.
I have to disagree there, SCOTUS rulings helped, but everything short of actually enforcing the voting rights of blacks was a stopgap. Jim crow would have returned as soon as they could find a loophole in the rulings.
Good points Dok and Requia.
I came across a summary that I thought was particularly interesting given the current state of the Union (bold mine).
QuoteSinha[6] and Richards[7] both conclude their cases by arguing that the Civil War had nothing to do with "states' rights", democracy, or resistance to arbitrary power. They argue that it was instead the result of the increasing cognitive dissonance in the minds of Northerners and (some) Southern non-slaveowners between the ideals that the United States was founded upon and identified itself as standing for, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, and the reality that the slave-power represented, as what they describe as an anti-democratic, counter-republican, oligarchic, despotic, authoritarian, if not totalitarian, movement for ownership of human beings as the personal chattels of the slaver. As this cognitive dissonance increased, the people of the Northern states, and the Northern states themselves, became increasingly inclined to resist the encroachments of the slave power upon their states' rights and encroachments of the slave power by and upon the Federal Government of the United States. The slave power, having failed to maintain its dominance of the Federal Government through democratic means, sought other means of maintaining its dominance of the Federal Government, by means of military aggression, by right of force and coercion, and thus, the Civil War occurred.
Part of me looks forward to the Tea Party being soundly defeated at the polls... but part of me has some concerns about 10% of the population with increasing cognative dissonance feeling like they have no control/dominance through the democratic process.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 11, 2010, 08:13:52 PM
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.
I am on the other side of this. Now, having said that I have debated this issue here before and the bumped thread will cover most of it I think. Economics and states rights were the catalysts. Slavery was the backbone of Southern economics.
Were there howling bigots who resented a DamnYankee saying they couldn't own slaves anymore? Hell yes. Never doubt that.
Here's the end result though, a nation ripped in half was a nation saved. There is no way this country would have survived this long with the millstone of slavery hanging around it's neck.
Also it is important to note that blatant racism will never go away. People will hate each other for any number of reasons.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:12:33 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 11, 2010, 08:13:52 PM
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.
I am on the other side of this. Now, having said that I have debated this issue here before and the bumped thread will cover most of it I think. Economics and states rights were the catalysts. Slavery was the backbone of Southern economics.
Were there howling bigots who resented a DamnYankee saying they couldn't own slaves anymore? Hell yes. Never doubt that.
Here's the end result though, a nation ripped in half was a nation saved. There is no way this country would have survived this long with the millstone of slavery hanging around it's neck.
Also it is important to note that blatant racism will never go away. People will hate each other for any number of reasons.
Excellent!
HERE'S SOMETHING ELSE
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 11, 2010, 10:26:37 PM
HERE'S SOMETHING ELSE
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
What possible difference would that make?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:27:10 PM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 11, 2010, 10:26:37 PM
HERE'S SOMETHING ELSE
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
What possible difference would that make?
DIFFERENCE?
I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:43:17 PM
I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.
I don't see how that affects the issue at all.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:43:17 PM
I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.
I don't see how that affects the issue at all.
It doesn't. I do however doubt very much that the voices of black slave owners were listened to or sought.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:51:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:43:17 PM
I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.
I don't see how that affects the issue at all.
It doesn't. I do however doubt very much that the voices of black slave owners were listened to or sought.
Perhaps the argument is that, since a handful of Blacks owned slaves, there was no civil war? Or :?
I finally found a state (or territory rather) that seceded without mentioning slavery.
Why did nobody tell me Tuscon was in the war? :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:54:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:51:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:43:17 PM
I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.
I don't see how that affects the issue at all.
It doesn't. I do however doubt very much that the voices of black slave owners were listened to or sought.
Perhaps the argument is that, since a handful of Blacks owned slaves, there was no civil war? Or :?
What I suspect is that EOT simply didn't realize the knowledge of black slave owners was all that common. The typical history books don't address either that or the fact that there were black landowners. The books also don't address that a lot of the bigotry that resulted was from the south losing the war and their 'property'.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on October 11, 2010, 09:22:01 PM
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.
I WAS
the last leg of this ^ statement, dok. i'm sure you don't need to read that article to know that african slaves were purchased by europeans from black african slave traders. slavery went beyond the race issue, and race relations were more human and complex than good vs. bad. the fact that long before the civil war there existed free blacks/ negroes/ african descended americans & a fair portion of those owned black slaves, slavery was not simply a racist issue.
AND
i did say, "here's something else". the article gives some great leads on more in depth info regarding politics relating to the civil war/ & pre/ post civil war era issues.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:58:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:54:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:51:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:43:17 PM
I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.
I don't see how that affects the issue at all.
It doesn't. I do however doubt very much that the voices of black slave owners were listened to or sought.
Perhaps the argument is that, since a handful of Blacks owned slaves, there was no civil war? Or :?
What I suspect is that EOT simply didn't realize the knowledge of black slave owners was all that common. The typical history books don't address either that or the fact that there were black landowners. The books also don't address that a lot of the bigotry that resulted was from the south losing the war and their 'property'.
Most histories of slavery completely disregard that slavery was primarily a class issue, and only later was made into a race issue for matters of political expediency.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 12, 2010, 12:07:52 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:58:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:54:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:51:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:43:17 PM
I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.
I don't see how that affects the issue at all.
It doesn't. I do however doubt very much that the voices of black slave owners were listened to or sought.
Perhaps the argument is that, since a handful of Blacks owned slaves, there was no civil war? Or :?
What I suspect is that EOT simply didn't realize the knowledge of black slave owners was all that common. The typical history books don't address either that or the fact that there were black landowners. The books also don't address that a lot of the bigotry that resulted was from the south losing the war and their 'property'.
Most histories of slavery completely disregard that slavery was primarily a class issue, and only later was made into a race issue for matters of political expediency.
Exactly. People are people and skin color has nothing to do with base instincts.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:54:22 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:51:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 11, 2010, 10:43:17 PM
I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.
I don't see how that affects the issue at all.
It doesn't. I do however doubt very much that the voices of black slave owners were listened to or sought.
Perhaps the argument is that, since a handful of Blacks owned slaves, there was no civil war? Or :?
YES!
in my 'altered history' comic, the civil war never took place.
THE LINK
i offered up, as i stated, goes further than simply pointing out that there were free blacks in 'dixieland' prior to the civil war. was slavery an issue? of course. was it
the issue? when less than 5% of southern whites owned slaves? that'll take some research.
YES,
there was segregation! blacks came to america as slaves. that (segregation) goes back to antiquity (obviously not between africans and americans).
It may have only been 5%, but it was the rich 5%.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 12, 2010, 09:28:29 AM
It may have only been 5%, but it was the rich 5%.
WELL
that was who owned slaves. and i was being generous to the 4.5% actual figure. the
rich, who had 50 + slaves, made up 1% of the southern states.
WHICH
is really different from now, where less than 1% of the nation own the rest of everyones asses.
OBVIOUSLY
we're over due for another 'civil' war