The Civil War Slavery and States Rights

I just had an interesting discussion. My view on this topic has been evolving for years. Not so much because of the facts (slavery was clearly the point of contention). But mainly on the black and white nature of the reasons that it is often treated in academia. This is hardly an acceptable thing to do...as war is not a black and white issue.

So I have a few thoughts and critical thinking questions that came out of said discussion.

1) The Civil War: what was the cause?

2) Why?

If you say slavery: why was slavery the cause? It wasn't that it was a "moral issue." Not that alone. Why was the North Opposed to slavery and the south not? What outlined that?

If you say States Rights...the States Rights to what? Well not own slaves. Obviously. States didn't own slaves. But it would have been about the states right to determine laws and regulate their economies. Right? And the war settled the debate on who was the final authority...federal or state government.

So the critical thinking:

Had slavery been a non issue (be it because the lack of moral objection...or had the south industrialized and determined that slavery was antiquated and no longer needed it)...was there anything that we would have potentially fought over? Something that the state vs the federal government would have brought us to war over? If so...what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blackjack50 said:

I just had an interesting discussion. My view on this topic has been evolving for years. Not so much because of the facts (slavery was clearly the point of contention). But mainly on the black and white nature of the reasons that it is often treated in academia. This is hardly an acceptable thing to do...as war is not a black and white issue.

So I have a few thoughts and critical thinking questions that came out of said discussion.

1) The Civil War: what was the cause?

2) Why?

If you say slavery: why was slavery the cause? It wasn't that it was a "moral issue." Not that alone. Why was the North Opposed to slavery and the south not? What outlined that?

If you say States Rights...the States Rights to what? Well not own slaves. Obviously. States didn't own slaves. But it would have been about the states right to determine laws and regulate their economies. Right? And the war settled the debate on who was the final authority...federal or state government.

So the critical thinking:

Had slavery been a non issue (be it because the lack of moral objection...or had the south industrialized and determined that slavery was antiquated and no longer needed it)...was there anything that we would have potentially fought over? Something that the state vs the federal government would have brought us to war over? If so...what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I saw a really great quote a while back but I can't find it again, it predicted the civil war about 20 years before it happened and it said it would be done in the name of states rights

blackjack50 said:

I just had an interesting discussion. My view on this topic has been evolving for years. Not so much because of the facts (slavery was clearly the point of contention). But mainly on the black and white nature of the reasons that it is often treated in academia. This is hardly an acceptable thing to do...as war is not a black and white issue.

So I have a few thoughts and critical thinking questions that came out of said discussion.

1) The Civil War: what was the cause?

2) Why?

If you say slavery: why was slavery the cause? It wasn't that it was a "moral issue." Not that alone. Why was the North Opposed to slavery and the south not? What outlined that?

If you say States Rights...the States Rights to what? Well not own slaves. Obviously. States didn't own slaves. But it would have been about the states right to determine laws and regulate their economies. Right? And the war settled the debate on who was the final authority...federal or state government.

So the critical thinking:

Had slavery been a non issue (be it because the lack of moral objection...or had the south industrialized and determined that slavery was antiquated and no longer needed it)...was there anything that we would have potentially fought over? Something that the state vs the federal government would have brought us to war over? If so...what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

In a way, you could say it was both----that it was about the supposed "states' right" to continue to allow slavery.

Fear played a big role too. Remember, the South had controlled the federal government for a very long time by 1860-1861. They had used the time to push their own agenda--- expansion to the south and southwest, into lands which would be open to slavery. The things the North were interested in--- the Homestead Act, railroads, etc--- the South had repeatedly rejected and pushed aside these ideas. When a candidate that wasn't firmly in the pocket of the South was elected, they were terrified that the North would do unto them as they had done unto the North.

I think secession was largely an economic issue. But it was also a political power struggle issue between the north and the south.

Bluffton Movement

It's not cool to take resources from one group and give it to another.

Too bad it happens too often even today.

Davy Crockett on Government Welfare




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blackjack50 said:

I just had an interesting discussion.

Click to expand...

here we go

So I have a few thoughts and critical thinking questions that came out of said discussion.

1) The Civil War: what was the cause?

Click to expand...

Causes

- Abolition of slavery was the primary cause, both proximate and underlying
- Southerners also felt like they'd been losing political and economic power and influence for decades
- There was some genuine concern over a federal government being too strong, but that was mostly out of fear that increased centralized power would... eliminate slavery
- The North was focused a little less on slavery per se, and more reacting to secession, which they could not abide

If you say slavery: why was slavery the cause? It wasn't that it was a "moral issue." Not that alone. Why was the North Opposed to slavery and the south not? What outlined that?

Click to expand...

That's an oversimplification.

There were abolitionists all over the US. However, they had more political power and a longer history. E.g. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777; NW Territories followed soon after; other northern states gradually banned it by 1800 or so. Slavery was a moral issue for some in the North, but not all.

As for how that split developed, I'd suggest reading a history book. Very short version: The northern states simply didn't depend on slavery as much as the South. It was more industrial, easier for European descendants to farm, and less susceptible to malaria (which is probably why black slaves were brought to the US, as they had better resistance).

If you say States Rights...the States Rights to what? Well not own slaves. Obviously. States didn't own slaves. But it would have been about the states right to determine laws and regulate their economies. Right?

Click to expand...

The North mostly fought to preserve the Union, and its political and economic power.

The Southern states wanted to preserve the institution of slavery.

Look at the South's declaration of causes for secession:
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

• Georgia got right to the point: " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...."

• Mississippi did too: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

• South Carolina built up an extensive "state's rights" defense before citing "....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."

• Texas was upset that they entered as a slave state, and might be forced to abandon slavery by the non-slave states

• Virginia's statement was brief, but objected to how the "Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."

So... Yeah. Slavery really was the catalyst here. There were other socioeconomic issues, and the Northerners did it for reasons other than abolition, but.... The seceding states weren't shy about it. Not much reason for us to be, either.

Had slavery been a non issue (be it because the lack of moral objection...or had the south industrialized and determined that slavery was antiquated and no longer needed it)...was there anything that we would have potentially fought over?

Click to expand...

Highly unlikely.

The other issues relating to state's rights were nowhere near as divisive as slavery. E.g. no one really wanted to go to war during the Nullification Crisis or over tariffs.

Crovax said:

I saw a really great quote a while back but I can't find it again, it predicted the civil war about 20 years before it happened and it said it would be done in the name of states rights

Click to expand...

The thing is...the civil war was about the states right to determine if slavery was equal. Economics. It wasn't about the morality of slave ownership...in the South. But many fought against slave ownership. They felt it was unjust. It wasn't about the States Rights. But the debate was still raging about who had the final say in government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Visbek said:

here we go



Causes

- Abolition of slavery was the primary cause, both proximate and underlying
- Southerners also felt like they'd been losing political and economic power and influence for decades
- There was some genuine concern over a federal government being too strong, but that was mostly out of fear that increased centralized power would... eliminate slavery
- The North was focused a little less on slavery per se, and more reacting to secession, which they could not abide



That's an oversimplification.

There were abolitionists all over the US. However, they had more political power and a longer history. E.g. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777; NW Territories followed soon after; other northern states gradually banned it by 1800 or so. Slavery was a moral issue for some in the North, but not all.

As for how that split developed, I'd suggest reading a history book. Very short version: The northern states simply didn't depend on slavery as much as the South. It was more industrial, easier for European descendants to farm, and less susceptible to malaria (which is probably why black slaves were brought to the US, as they had better resistance).



The North mostly fought to preserve the Union, and its political and economic power.

The Southern states wanted to preserve the institution of slavery.

Look at the South's declaration of causes for secession:
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

• Georgia got right to the point: " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...."

• Mississippi did too: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

• South Carolina built up an extensive "state's rights" defense before citing "....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."

• Texas was upset that they entered as a slave state, and might be forced to abandon slavery by the non-slave states

• Virginia's statement was brief, but objected to how the "Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."

So... Yeah. Slavery really was the catalyst here. There were other socioeconomic issues, and the Northerners did it for reasons other than abolition, but.... The seceding states weren't shy about it. Not much reason for us to be, either.



Highly unlikely.

The other issues relating to state's rights were nowhere near as divisive as slavery. E.g. no one really wanted to go to war during the Nullification Crisis or over tariffs.

Click to expand...

Sigh. There is always one.

The fact is man...nobody is debating the war wasn't about slavery. Slavery was the issue for which there could be no compromise. Economics. The South ran on them and the north didn't. It wasn't a morality issue. It was a money issue...to the government. And of course I'm taking the cynical approach and then sense that I do not believe the northern government cared about slavery, but about economics of slavery. But that is irrelevant.

The idea that it wasn't about States Rights is also silly. It was...in the states right to determine slave ownership. Without the question of the right of the state...there is no debate either. The question primarily being pondered here is what is one without the other. If slavery were a non issue...morally and economically...would the war have happened? What about vice versa?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blackjack50 said:

I just had an interesting discussion. My view on this topic has been evolving for years. Not so much because of the facts (slavery was clearly the point of contention). But mainly on the black and white nature of the reasons that it is often treated in academia. This is hardly an acceptable thing to do...as war is not a black and white issue.

So I have a few thoughts and critical thinking questions that came out of said discussion.

1) The Civil War: what was the cause?

2) Why?

If you say slavery: why was slavery the cause? It wasn't that it was a "moral issue." Not that alone. Why was the North Opposed to slavery and the south not? What outlined that?

If you say States Rights...the States Rights to what? Well not own slaves. Obviously. States didn't own slaves. But it would have been about the states right to determine laws and regulate their economies. Right? And the war settled the debate on who was the final authority...federal or state government.

So the critical thinking:

Had slavery been a non issue (be it because the lack of moral objection...or had the south industrialized and determined that slavery was antiquated and no longer needed it)...was there anything that we would have potentially fought over? Something that the state vs the federal government would have brought us to war over? If so...what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

IMO, no slavery issue, no war. But, the war was more about money than anything else. Specifically, the billions of dollars slaves were worth to plantation owners.

I see the war sparking over what is today similar to the gun issues. Hard line slaver holders feared any restrictions on slavery, specifically the restrictions on expanding slavery into the new states, would eventually lead to banning the practice altogether. And, this would result in the loss of billions of dollars since the slave would no longer be property.

So, IMO, fear of the Union eventually banning slavery as an institution and the resulting confiscation of their property resulting from freeing slaves all over the South led to the Confederates seceding.

blackjack50 said:

I just had an interesting discussion. My view on this topic has been evolving for years. Not so much because of the facts (slavery was clearly the point of contention). But mainly on the black and white nature of the reasons that it is often treated in academia. This is hardly an acceptable thing to do...as war is not a black and white issue.

So I have a few thoughts and critical thinking questions that came out of said discussion.

1) The Civil War: what was the cause?

2) Why?

If you say slavery: why was slavery the cause? It wasn't that it was a "moral issue." Not that alone. Why was the North Opposed to slavery and the south not? What outlined that?

If you say States Rights...the States Rights to what? Well not own slaves. Obviously. States didn't own slaves. But it would have been about the states right to determine laws and regulate their economies. Right? And the war settled the debate on who was the final authority...federal or state government.

So the critical thinking:

Had slavery been a non issue (be it because the lack of moral objection...or had the south industrialized and determined that slavery was antiquated and no longer needed it)...was there anything that we would have potentially fought over? Something that the state vs the federal government would have brought us to war over? If so...what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The North invaded due to secession, not slavery. The Confederacy, in my view, was the hold over of the anti-federalists and their perspective was brought to light in the Irish Home Rule movement. Much of the modern conservative platform is based on the views of the southern confederacy.

blackjack50 said:

Sigh. There is always one.

The fact is man...nobody is debating the war wasn't about slavery. Slavery was the issue for which there could be no compromise. Economics. The South ran on them and the north didn't. It wasn't a morality issue. It was a money issue...to the government. And of course I'm taking the cynical approach and then sense that I do not believe the northern government cared about slavery, but about economics of slavery. But that is irrelevant.

The idea that it wasn't about States Rights is also silly. It was...in the states right to determine slave ownership. Without the question of the right of the state...there is no debate either. The question primarily being pondered here is what is one without the other. If slavery were a non issue...morally and economically...would the war have happened? What about vice versa?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

But the South already had the right to own slaves in the slave states as per Article 4; section 2; third clause of the Constitution...



Also, none of the compromises made before the war over the new territories took slavery away from the Slave States...

https://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1286


So why would the South secede for a right they already had?

I would argue that it wasn't the South's state rights they were seceding for...but rather it was the North's state rights they were seceding against.

In the Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession...it specifically names several Northern States that passed State legislation to null Federal fugitive slave laws and to abolish slavery in their own States....which the South considered a violation of the Constitution...not State Rights. In fact, it doesn't even mention the 10th amendment...which is often used in defense of state rights today...




The South seceded over states rights, alright...but it just wasn't theirs, instead it was the North's states rights to abolish slavery in their own states.

blackjack50 said:

Sigh. There is always one.

The fact is man...nobody is debating the war wasn't about slavery. Slavery was the issue for which there could be no compromise. Economics. The South ran on them and the north didn't. It wasn't a morality issue. It was a money issue...to the government. And of course I'm taking the cynical approach and then sense that I do not believe the northern government cared about slavery, but about economics of slavery. But that is irrelevant.

The idea that it wasn't about States Rights is also silly. It was...in the states right to determine slave ownership. Without the question of the right of the state...there is no debate either. The question primarily being pondered here is what is one without the other. If slavery were a non issue...morally and economically...would the war have happened? What about vice versa?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

For the north, the war was not about slavery. There were four slave states at the time.