• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grant's view of the cause of the U.S. Civil War -- SLAVERY

scatt said:
The south seceded to have slavery, right? The civil war was to keep slavery, right? An amendment that would literally allow slavery to continue and be constitutionally protected forever, that was passed by both chambers and out for ratification, is not at all relevant to that claim? You cannot think of any way that would not work with your premise?
Click to expand...

If you have a point to make. Make your point. We'll proceed to break it down afterwards. If not...have a nice day.
 
scatt said:
The south seceded to have slavery, right? The civil war was to keep slavery, right? An amendment that would literally allow slavery to continue and be constitutionally protected forever, that was passed by both chambers and out for ratification, is not at all relevant to that claim? You cannot think of any way that would not work with your premise?
Click to expand...

The Corwin Amendment banned any future Constitutional Amendments outlawing slavery nationally, something that had nothing to do with the source of the present controversy: the expansion of slavery and the decline of political influence of Southern slave power. It was ignored by the seceding states because it was meaningless in the immediate context and did not address the primary grievances or concerns of the Southern slave states. The only compromise which would have assuaged some Southern representatives was the Crittenden Compromise which would have, by Constitutional Amendment, allowed for the expansion of slavery below a certain latitude, protecting the intra-state slave trade, indemnify slave owners for escaped slaves, harden the fugitive slave laws, etc, etc. This was something that was rejected by the Republicans as utterly unacceptable for it aimed to codify precisely what they wanted to stop most of all--the spread of slavery and slave power.

The Confederacy was formed not only to protect slavery, but to strengthen and expand the pillars of slave power.
 
TurtleDude said:
Grant, who was born not all that far from where I grew up, was an interesting figure. His administration was corrupt but IIRC he refused a 50K offer from an insurance company to use his name saying he wouldn't accept payment for no work. He lost his fortune when a business partner swindled the company he was part of, but dying of throat cancer, he worked hard to write his memoirs which sold hundreds of thousands of copies and restored his family's wealth after he died. and yes I recall his comments about the slaves.

I also recall some politician proposed sending all the slaves back to Africa and another senator noted the proposal had listed funds only sufficient to send half the slaves back and the proponent noted there was enough moneys to send all of them "half way back". So many what ifs when it comes to the legacy of slavery
Click to expand...

It was Lee who turned down the 50k, not Grant.
 
CrabCake said:
It's not just Grant who held this view. It was also the states that seceded themselves who held this view. They said as much in their various declarations of secession. Here are snippets from a few of them with emphasis added in some places:











That the civil war was about slavery is without question.

Here's a short clip from Col. Ty Seidule, professor at the military academy at West Point dealing with this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

That anyone still believes it was about anything besides slavery in an age when we have access to so much information is hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Only 4% of southerners owned slaves, and of course many of this 4% ran the confederate government- the same government that soon exempted owners of 20 or more slaves from conscription. The war was largely fought for them- not "the people". This was likely a factor in the Revolution, as England was turning against slavery- and founding "fathers" like Jefferson and Washington had slaves.
 
zip said:
It was Lee who turned down the 50k, not Grant.
Click to expand...

ah OK, I must have heard wrong or I was not paying close enough attention
 
Sherman123 said:
The Corwin Amendment banned any future Constitutional Amendments outlawing slavery nationally, something that had nothing to do with the source of the present controversy: the expansion of slavery and the decline of political influence of Southern slave power. It was ignored by the seceding states because it was meaningless in the immediate context and did not address the primary grievances or concerns of the Southern slave states. The only compromise which would have assuaged some Southern representatives was the Crittenden Compromise which would have, by Constitutional Amendment, allowed for the expansion of slavery below a certain latitude, protecting the intra-state slave trade, indemnify slave owners for escaped slaves, harden the fugitive slave laws, etc, etc. This was something that was rejected by the Republicans as utterly unacceptable for it aimed to codify precisely what they wanted to stop most of all--the spread of slavery and slave power.

The Confederacy was formed not only to protect slavery, but to strengthen and expand the pillars of slave power.
Click to expand...

Except the Corwin amendment specifies any state, and then specifies congress cannot abolish or interfere with slavery for those states (any). The new argument is the south seceded because they could not have slavery in unnamed territories and states that did not exist yet but could have it in their own states? Do you not understand the absolute massive opening the Corwin amendment makes with its text?

CrabCake said:
If you have a point to make.
Click to expand...

The south caring so much about slavery that they seceded, suddenly forgot they cared about slavery?
 
scatt said:
The south caring so much about slavery that they seceded, suddenly forgot they cared about slavery?
Click to expand...

No one has made that claim.

The Corwin amendment was simply too late; like a former spouse finally agreeing to seek marriage counseling after the divorce has been finalized and the other partner has moved on. Seven states had already seceded by the time this was even proposed and the civil war broke out just a few weeks after it was passed. Thus it slipped away into irrelevance. It was simply too late.

The existence of the Corwin Amendment is actually strong evidence to the fact that secession was about slavery. In its last ditch attempt to save the union, congress came up with one last compromise they thought was the best shot. What was it about? Slavery! The issue they all understood to be at the core of secession. Had something else been at the core of secession, all of these last ditch attempts would have addressed those issues instead. The fact everyone in congress understood that compromising on slavery was the only way forward shows what we all still know, slavery was the cause of secession.
 
Last edited:
scatt said:
Except the Corwin amendment specifies any state, and then specifies congress cannot abolish or interfere with slavery for those states (any). The new argument is the south seceded because they could not have slavery in unnamed territories and states that did not exist yet but could have it in their own states? Do you not understand the absolute massive opening the Corwin amendment makes with its text?



The south caring so much about slavery that they seceded, suddenly forgot they cared about slavery?
Click to expand...


No. The Corwin Amendment:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

The purpose of the Corwin Amendment was to prevent Congress from passing a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting slavery, either nationally or within a specific state. This was not an outcome greatly feared by seceding Southern delegates. What they wanted, what they opposed, were attempts to arrest the expansion of slavery and the realization that their power was diminishing is new free states were brought into the Union. You are incorrect.
 
Sherman123 said:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

The purpose of the Corwin Amendment was to prevent Congress from passing a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting slavery, either nationally or within a specific state. This was not an outcome greatly feared by seceding Southern delegates. What they wanted, what they opposed, were attempts to arrest the expansion of slavery and the realization that their power was diminishing is new free states were brought into the Union.
Click to expand...

Not big on legal text?

If congress cannot interfere even with an amendment (supreme law), how can they interfere without an amendment?

I do agree the south was not all worried about losing slavery. So they left because they felt they were not being represented?

CrabCake said:
The Corwin amendment was simply too late; like a former spouse finally agreeing to seek marriage counseling after the divorce has been finalized and the other partner has moved on. Seven states had already seceded by the time this was even proposed and the civil war broke out just a few weeks after it was passed. Thus it slipped away into irrelevance. It was simply too late.

The existence of the Corwin Amendment is actually strong evidence to the fact that secession was about slavery. In its last ditch attempt to save the union, congress came up with one last compromise they thought was the best shot. What was it about? Slavery! The issue they all understood to be at the core of secession. Had something else been at the core of secession, all of these last ditch attempts would have addressed those issues instead. The fact everyone in congress understood that compromising on slavery was the only way forward shows what we all still know, slavery was the cause of secession.
Click to expand...

Too late for the one thing they wanted?

You mean to say since they did not come back for slavery, it could not possibly be about slavery.
 
scatt said:
Too late for the one thing they wanted?
Click to expand...

Yes. Much too late. By the time the Corwin amendment was passed, seven of the southern states had already:

1. Declared their independence
2. United under the Confederacy
3. Adopted a provisional constitution and completed drafting of a final one (it was ratified within days of the Corwin amendment)
4. Elected their first President and Vice President
5. Put together the first Presidential cabinet
6. Put together a Confederate Army
7. Drawn up plans for the coming war
8. Positioned troops for the assault on Fort Sumter
9. Made innumerable other decisions and actions as a sovereign territory

So, yes, it was much too late at that point. The decision was made, the path was set, and they were way too far along to pause now and see if this amendment can fix everything. The union was over and it was much too late for any actions of congress to bring them back.

I think a marriage example is very fitting since it also involves the dissolution of a union. Suppose a man and a woman were married and their marriage broke apart due to the woman refusing to seek help for an addiction. After the divorce the woman finally agrees to seek help. The problem is that they have already been divorced for months and the man is already engaged to someone else. When the man refuses to go back into a marriage with his former spouse, can we use that refusal as proof that the reason for the divorce wasn't because of her refusal to seek help for her addiction? No, we can't. The wife may have finally caved and offered everything her ex wanted, but it was much too late, he was already divorced and engaged to someone else.

scatt said:
You mean to say since they did not come back for slavery, it could not possibly be about slavery.
Click to expand...

No. I mean that the fact that every last ditch attempt to save the union involved making concessions on slavery shows us that it was well understood by everyone that slavery was the central issue. Had the central issue been state rights we would have seen a flurry of last minute attempts to save the union involving granting more state rights, not involving slavery. The Corwin amendment was about slavery because this is what had to be addressed if there was any hope of restoring the union.
 
Last edited:
scatt said:
Not big on legal text?

If congress cannot interfere even with an amendment (supreme law), how can they interfere without an amendment?

I do agree the south was not all worried about losing slavery. So they left because they felt they were not being represented?



Too late for the one thing they wanted?

You mean to say since they did not come back for slavery, it could not possibly be about slavery.
Click to expand...

Many, including Lincoln, believed that Congress lacked the authority to abolish slavery, however he (and most Republicans believed) that it could be prohibited in new territories and banned from existing states. This was the principle issue that was at stake for the would be Confederates, mostly the border staters, who pinned high hopes on the Crittenden Compromises which were rejected by the Republican Party and the President. Why? Because it would have forbid the restriction of slavery and done nothing to arrest its expansion.

The war was fought because of slavery, and instigated by the forces of southern slave power in order to meet the interests of that same power.
 
Riveroaks said:
The following is a quote of former President/General Ulysses S. Grant's view of the cause of the U.S. Civil War, taken from his last chapter in his Memoirs published in 1885:

THE CAUSE of the great War Of The Rebellion against the United States
Click to expand...

Quoting this opinion by Grant in a thread topic concerning the Constitution; I must immediately point out that the Fugutive Slave Laws were enacted expressly and directly in pursuance of Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3 - an integral part of the compact between the States. Therefore to say that it threatened 'the independence of the north' States... whom voluntarily agreed to the compact... is a misconstrued perspective. (It's really not so peculiar in the context of the age. Do the several States not apprehend criminal fugitives for crimes commited in another State?) Nonetheless...

This same appeal to was given by Samuel Johnson, against the seceding colonists, "why do I hear constant yelps about liberty from the drivers of slaves". (All the colonies had slavery at the time of the American Revolution).

It's a good question to say the least.

It must, of course, be admitted that slavery was a moral stain, which was an unfortunate inheritance of British Colonialism. But the idea that the war was “about” slavery (whatever that means), especially an idea admittedly developed by the victor immediately following the war, seems like nothing more than a self-justification. In other words... the same as the race card is used today, so too was the slavery card used then.

No one… not even Grant, nor Lincoln (by his own admission)… invaded the south for the purposes of freeing slaves, but instead to “save the union”. (Which unfortunately entailed the mutually exclusive idea of subjugating entire states at the barrel of a gun).

It can be said fairly and objectively said, however, that there was no single cause of the War Between the States - or any other war for that matter. Such simplistic notions deprive true discourse on the matter even a century and a half later.

In truth and fact... different States seceded for different reasons. All four ‘border-states’, for example, seceded only after Lincoln’s decision to invade because they felt such action was unconstitutional within the power of the Executive. Those four States certainly did NOT secede over slavery.

While it is clear that secession of some states was caused directly by the question of slavery - whether it be the unmolested continuance of the institution in states in which it then existed, or even the expansion of slavery into the territories in order to keep a de facto equal representation in the Senate to avoid laws that may have been viewed as oppressive to the practical economic realities of the southern States at the time (see the Corwin Amendment.... an Amendment that would have protected slavery for all time, since the only other place that Congress has no power to amend the Constitution is in equal representation in the Senate) - the distinct position that slavery was not a direct cause of the war itself cannot be refuted easily for any diligent and honestly objective study of history.

It is clear to reason that the war itself was caused only by secession - no matter what the cause of secession; the war would have taken place most prominently because of secession rather than the moral or abstract question of slavery.

“But the Union, in any event, will not be dissolved. We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it we won't let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury, in our hands and at our command, you could not do it. … … We do not want to dissolve the Union; you shall not.” – Abraham Lincoln August 1, 1856
 
TML said:
Quoting this opinion by Grant in a thread topic concerning the Constitution; I must immediately point out that the Fugutive Slave Laws were enacted expressly and directly in pursuance of Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3 - an integral part of the compact between the States. Therefore to say that it threatened 'the independence of the north' States... whom voluntarily agreed to the compact... is a misconstrued perspective. (It's really not so peculiar in the context of the age. Do the several States not apprehend criminal fugitives for crimes commited in another State?) Nonetheless...

This same appeal to was given by Samuel Johnson, against the seceding colonists, "why do I hear constant yelps about liberty from the drivers of slaves". (All the colonies had slavery at the time of the American Revolution).

It's a good question to say the least.

It must, of course, be admitted that slavery was a moral stain, which was an unfortunate inheritance of British Colonialism. But the idea that the war was “about” slavery (whatever that means), especially an idea admittedly developed by the victor immediately following the war, seems like nothing more than a self-justification. In other words... the same as the race card is used today, so too was the slavery card used then.

No one… not even Grant, nor Lincoln (by his own admission)… invaded the south for the purposes of freeing slaves, but instead to “save the union”. (Which unfortunately entailed the mutually exclusive idea of subjugating entire states at the barrel of a gun).

It can be said fairly and objectively said, however, that there was no single cause of the War Between the States - or any other war for that matter. Such simplistic notions deprive true discourse on the matter even a century and a half later.

In truth and fact... different States seceded for different reasons. All four ‘border-states’, for example, seceded only after Lincoln’s decision to invade because they felt such action was unconstitutional within the power of the Executive. Those four States certainly did NOT secede over slavery.

While it is clear that secession of some states was caused directly by the question of slavery - whether it be the unmolested continuance of the institution in states in which it then existed, or even the expansion of slavery into the territories in order to keep a de facto equal representation in the Senate to avoid laws that may have been viewed as oppressive to the practical economic realities of the southern States at the time (see the Corwin Amendment.... an Amendment that would have protected slavery for all time, since the only other place that Congress has no power to amend the Constitution is in equal representation in the Senate) - the distinct position that slavery was not a direct cause of the war itself cannot be refuted easily for any diligent and honestly objective study of history.

It is clear to reason that the war itself was caused only by secession - no matter what the cause of secession; the war would have taken place most prominently because of secession rather than the moral or abstract question of slavery.

“But the Union, in any event, will not be dissolved. We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it we won't let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury, in our hands and at our command, you could not do it. … … We do not want to dissolve the Union; you shall not.” – Abraham Lincoln August 1, 1856
Click to expand...

Oh I agree.

The Yankees (from Illinois -- not traditionally a Yankee state however) counter-attacked and then invaded the South to ensure the Union.

As Grant said, the rebellion was high treason.

But the proximate CAUSE of the Civil War WAS slavery, just as Grant said.
 
Sherman123 said:
Many, including Lincoln, believed that Congress lacked the authority to abolish slavery, however he (and most Republicans believed) that it could be prohibited in new territories and banned from existing states. This was the principle issue that was at stake for the would be Confederates, mostly the border staters, who pinned high hopes on the Crittenden Compromises which were rejected by the Republican Party and the President. Why? Because it would have forbid the restriction of slavery and done nothing to arrest its expansion.

The war was fought because of slavery, and instigated by the forces of southern slave power in order to meet the interests of that same power.
Click to expand...

Congress AND Lincoln BOTH did lack the authority to abolish slavery, no question.

That took several amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
 
Riveroaks said:
As Grant said, the rebellion was high treason.

But the proximate CAUSE of the Civil War WAS slavery, just as Grant said.
Click to expand...

I can understand how and why people insist on saying that slavery was the immediate cause… without slavery then the southern states may never have seceded, and thus war might not have taken place.

But, slavery is indeed a secondary cause whereas the immediate cause was the act of secession… that act to which Grant refers to as a rebellion and high treason.

It comes down to the argument of whether you agree that unilateral secession under the same principles of the Declaration of Independence is Constitutional or regarded as treason.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Don't worry, I have no problem with your reasonable requests.

The establishment of Liberia in Africa by former US slaves, Haiti (which had already seen a bloody insurrection in the late 1790's), and the Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico and Cuba were all options. Lincoln had, early in his first term, discussed openly the possibility of relocating former slaves to Central America rather than to Africa or islands in the Caribbean, since overland transportation would be easier, cheaper and safer for all involved. Once Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation, the plan to relocate former slaves anywhere was pretty much off the table, for Lincoln anyway.

Grant wanted to do what he could for the former slaves. One of the first all former-slave towns established by Grant was right outside Yorktown, Virginia near what is the Yorktown National Cemetery and was done by Grant as the CinC of the Army of Potomac before he left service. Lincoln never agreed to leave it be due to the politics of it but the graves from the town and AME church are still there, just outside the wall of the cemetery (look to the right of the cemetery on the linked map): https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2247064,-76.5036735,298m/data=!3m1!1e3 Union Road on the map is what was the main road through the new town.
Click to expand...

I've been there lots of times and wondered what the purpose of the overgrown road was. It is over grown mostly, especially Marl Pit Rd.
 
In regards to integration:

fortunately whites will soon be a minority, so People of Color will be able to reach their potential without a malicious majority interfering in their lives
 
zip said:
Only 4% of southerners owned slaves, and of course many of this 4% ran the confederate government- the same government that soon exempted owners of 20 or more slaves from conscription. The war was largely fought for them- not "the people". This was likely a factor in the Revolution, as England was turning against slavery- and founding "fathers" like Jefferson and Washington had slaves.
Click to expand...

Not sure where that stat comes from but it's either outright false or woefully misleading. First, in a family, probably only one person (the head of household, generally the father) owned slaves, as in held the title to those assets, same as the land, but to say the wife, kids, grandkids were not "slave owners" is misleading to the point of a lie. Second, the percentages varied considerably.

In Mississippi, 49% of families owned slaves. In Alabama 35%. Texas 28%. Maryland 12%. Etc. Here's a table from the 1860 census:

1860 Census Results
 
TML said:
I can understand how and why people insist on saying that slavery was the immediate cause… without slavery then the southern states may never have seceded, and thus war might not have taken place.

But, slavery is indeed a secondary cause whereas the immediate cause was the act of secession… that act to which Grant refers to as a rebellion and high treason.

It comes down to the argument of whether you agree that unilateral secession under the same principles of the Declaration of Independence is Constitutional or regarded as treason.
Click to expand...

I guess I'd respond that the "immediate" cause in your formulation isn't all that relevant. Secession was just the manifestation of the irreconcilable conflict over...slavery.

Sort of like a breakdown from engine failure from lack of oil resulting from the failure of the oil pump. The "cause" of the car stopping on the side of the road is failure of the pump, not the lack of oil or the engine failure.
 
CrabCake said:
I never claimed they were fighting for federalism. But through their own admission in this document, they are clearly opposed to the laws individual states have passed. Their argument is not a state rights argument, it is actually the opposite. They are arguing that other states have taken state rights too far.

The document doesn't spend much time arguing for state rights, instead it begins to indict northern states for the laws they have been passing. Arguments are made about state responsibilities and about the need to reign in other state's rights. If you want to claim the civil war was about state rights, you have to conclude the south was fighting against state rights, not in favor. But that's not the point, the point is that it makes no sense to consider the civil war to be about state rights anyway; it was clearly about slavery, through their own admission.

But neither are you seeing any state rights arguments. We see in every single document of secession, the reason behind it being clearly proclaimed: slavery*.

The bottom line is that an honest reading of any of the secession documents will clearly show what the civil war was all about. Slave-holding states were upset about all of the anti-slavery laws that other states had passed. They saw their institution of slavery being threatened and decided to leave the US in an attempt to try to preserve slavery. That's the bottom line. They all admit it in their documents. An honest reading of any of them will leave you with that understanding.

Even if it didn't, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the amount of documentation we have on this. If you really wanted to settle it, you don't have to stop at the documents, you could pull up newspaper articles from the time period, you can read the arguments leaders in the South were making around that time, you can read correspondence between various of the people involved, you can read memoirs looking back on the events from some of the people involved. In fact, this thread is about one such memoir that is yet more primary evidence on the mountain of evidence we have showing the civil war was about slavery. That the civil war was about slavery is not the kind of history we are cobbling together from scraps of information; it's the kind we know because we have an overwhelming amount of documented evidence that clearly plays out the whole story for us. The declarations of secession are merely a concise and compelling summary because ultimately, these are the documents the South published in order to explain to you the reasons behind their actions.

*Well, ok...maybe not all of them. Alabama claims they seceded because they didn't like the results of the presidential election. That leaves us having to read between the lines as to why they didn't like those results. But pretty much all of the others make clear that it's about slavery.

Here's a great article providing even more primary sources:
The Confederate Cause in the Words of Its Leaders - The Atlantic

I leave you with the words of the people of Mississippi:
Click to expand...

Just wanted to point out a most excellent argument. Spot on. I have used the secession documents myself in debate as proof that slavery was the defining issue in the Civil war.

You however, added a cherry on top with your point regarding state rights. Its impossible for someone to claim the south left the union over "states rights".. when as you point out.. it was their very complaint that states were exercising THEIR OWN STATES AUTHORITY.. in not apprehending run away slaves.

Kudos.

(a "like" didn't seem good enough)
 
JasperL said:
Not sure where that stat comes from but it's either outright false or woefully misleading. First, in a family, probably only one person (the head of household, generally the father) owned slaves, as in held the title to those assets, same as the land, but to say the wife, kids, grandkids were not "slave owners" is misleading to the point of a lie. Second, the percentages varied considerably.

In Mississippi, 49% of families owned slaves. In Alabama 35%. Texas 28%. Maryland 12%. Etc. Here's a table from the 1860 census:

1860 Census Results
Click to expand...

I erred as apparently the 4% is the percentage of ALL whites who were slave owners. Thanks for your input. Nonetheless, even in Mississippi the majority of families did not own slaves. Also, 88% owned less than 20 slaves and were subject to conscription. Selected Statistics
 
TML said:
I can understand how and why people insist on saying that slavery was the immediate cause… without slavery then the southern states may never have seceded, and thus war might not have taken place.

But, slavery is indeed a secondary cause whereas the immediate cause was the act of secession… that act to which Grant refers to as a rebellion and high treason.

It comes down to the argument of whether you agree that unilateral secession under the same principles of the Declaration of Independence is Constitutional or regarded as treason.
Click to expand...

You are correct of course -- that succession was the immediate cause.

Lincoln's election triggered the succession by SC.

The failure of Buchanan (a Pennsylvania man) to act against the succession triggered the other Southern states to do so as well.

Lincoln inherited a mess. Luckily for him there were a few good generals left on the Union side. Most of the good ones had gone to the South under the guise of defending their homelands from possible Yankee invasion and for the support of "States' Rights."

Slavery triggered the successions. The successions triggered the war.
 
"Grant's view of the cause of the U.S. Civil War -- SLAVERY"

My what a revelation!
 
Riveroaks said:
But the country grew, rapid transit was established, and trade and commerce between the States got to be so much greater than before, that the power of the National Government became more felt and recognized and therefore had to be enlisted in the cause of this institution.
Click to expand...

This is the central reality of all states rights bull**** vs congresses power to regulate interstate congress. The reality is that when the country was first founded commerce between the states was incredibly difficult, and it was virtually impossible to make a product in one state and transport it to another for sale. As technology improved trade be came easier and more abundant thus requiring more and more decisions to be made at the federal level. With the creation of the interstate highway system, refrigerated trucks, and jumbo jets it is now all but pointless to have individual states with radically different economic regulations. It simply leads to fighting between the states just like we saw back then. You can look upon the slavery vs non-slavery argument of back then similar than the argument between raising the minimum wage vs eliminating it today. The same southern conservative state that supported slavery back then seem to think no minimum wage is necessary. Forcing workers to negotiate themselves into essential slavery. While Norther more liberal states support raising the minimum wage and therefore increasing the freedom of the people.
 
fmw said:
"Grant's view of the cause of the U.S. Civil War -- SLAVERY"

My what a revelation!
Click to expand...

Well a lot of people still dispute that with their own revisionist views of the U.S. Civil War.

When I was in college and took the required course U.S. History, the professor was dead serious that the Civil War was all about states' rights and had nothing to do with slavery.

Grant simply disagrees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom