Posted on 07/07/2015 3:17:08 AM PDT by dennisw
“A reasonable perspective. Except that the only states’ right southern leaders really were concerned about, or that they felt was threatened was the right to own slaves.”
That’s overly simplistic. The North had an advantage in both population as a whole (more urban) and as apportioned (3/5ths rule). That led to the North having a veto over the South in Washington. Add to that the contention over slavery and every policy disagreement had ominous overtones.
For example, applied today, the biggest issue for advocating States’ Rights is limiting government. While you can say that overarches much of our current politics, the recent Supreme Cabal decision is evidence that there are more issues at play.
That should have been hashed out 70 years earlier. They Northern states agreed to it back in 1789 when they ratified the Constitution. When the country was young, facing imminent threat of invasion and war with England and needed the agricultural products the South was able to produce with slave labor, it was OK.
Al will owe more than taxes then.
You can equally accurately say the South got a boost in representation by the 3/5 rule.
The South claimed slaves were property, and was increasingly moving towards the notion that they weren’t really men at all. (This is, after all, the only way to square the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence with slavery.)
So why should southern property be counted when determining representation while northern property was not?
It is a stretch to infer that 30% is central to the overall South as a whole because of the economic reasons. Sure, 30% is a large part, but if you consider the concentration was not held in 2/3 of the population, it points to a smaller more influential group of whites with a lot of resources who had a lot of slaves that earned them more resources.
One might even think that some of the 2/3 who did not own slaves and were subsistence farmers, etc. who might have even wished to sell off some of the excess resented the competition by those concerns that owned a lot of slaves.
Additionally, your argument on the reasons for war is solely based on slavery and totally neglects the enmity between North and South, even in Congress, because of tariffs, N-S trade imbalance or inequities, or just plain bad blood between both sides like we have between Conservatives and Liberals today.
At the time of the Constitution, slavery had been effectively eliminated in only one state, MA. Even there it wasn’t formally and legally ended till 1865 by 13A.
In 1789, slavery was believed by everyone, including the slave owners, to be on its way out. It wasn’t very profitable and it was expected the institution would die a natural death. Not surprisingly, few saw a need to create immense uproar over an issue that would go away by itself.
It wasn’t until the early decades of the 19th century, when slavery started to become wildly profitable, that it became increasingly an issue. It’s one thing to put up with a fading evil. It’s quite another to put up with one whose proponents insist it must be allowed to spread in both time and space.
Please point to anywhere in my some tens of thousands of posts that I have said the war was solely about slavery.
What I have said is that it was the root and core reason for the hostility. All other issues could be, and were, compromised. Slavery by its very nature cannot be handled that way. Either people are enslaved or they are not.
Tariffs, for example, are often used as a or the reason for the war. The problem with this is that in 1860 tariffs were the lowest they’d been in the nation’s history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history#/media/File:US-Tariffs.svg
Perhaps more critically, do you really want to try to justify a massive war and its death and destruction over tariff rates, which northern consumers paid at exactly the same rate as southern consumers? Really?
Our founders punted on the issue at great cost to the ultimate shaping of our Republic.
In their defense, it was probably too great an issue to handle in addition to the grest task of building a nation.
does the article count indentured servants as slaves? Those who had been put in prisons for their debts, sold as a indentured servant to work at their bondholders discretion until their debt was paid off, with whatever expenses were applied by the court.Doubtful many of those were black.
I was so aggrieved to find out mah fahmily in good ol mississippi was so wealthy, and I am stuck here in this repugnican stronghold, without moneys to pay fo mah families sin. Caint even get a job on ol Haley’s plantation cos I voted for a Jones County firebrand who was robbed in the senatorial election.Ya’ll come see us now.Still almost safe, cos of concealed carry and the castle doctrine, being hows they cain’t put the freemens chilluns in jail fo nuthin, cuz thas rasist, but they at least give you half a chance. And if you live in Mississippi, you know what I mean.
If you dont, come see us when you go to the pettus bridge to march, we ain’ts but a littles ways west of there.We’ll leave the door open and the flag unfurled.
Does your comment mean that if slavery wasn’t prohibited by the Constitution nobody thereafter had any right to work against it?
In 1860 almost all northerners, and all northern politicians, agreed that the Union had no right to interfere in slavery within a state. To be fair, a good many of the pols were probably lying, much like Obama claiming to be against gay marriage as recently as two years ago.
Thank you, sir!
With your question, I might add this question: ‘How many ancestors of Americans were NOT in America in 1860s...My relatives left Europe in 1911, 1915 and 1920.
Agree 100%.
In 1789 I think there was a choice between a Union accepting slavery and no Union at all.
I think the Founders made the right choice. Especially when they pretty much all agreed the problem would go away by itself.
Indentured servants weren’t chattel. Even if they were indentured for life as punishment for crime.
For one thing, their children were born free.
Here is a little video graph depicting the slave trade.
This is really worth watching; very interesting from a historical perspective.
Interesting that Portugal and Spain led the slave trade by far.
So is abortion. Does that mean we don't criticize that or the people who support it?
Where? :)
Interesting factoid. In media and the world, you’d get the impression the United States was largely responsible for slavery and the slave trade.
Yet <5% of slaves shipped across the Atlantic came to what is now the USA. The vast majority went to Brazil and the Caribbean.
But you never, ever hear about the original sin of Brazil or Barbados being slavery.
If I am not mistaken, the agreement that ended new slaves being brought in was part of the attempt to stave off the coming war. When did that begin?
At any rate, because of the Bloodiest war in American history,the south was ruined, the powerful benefitted. It was lunacy on the scale of what we have today.
Not one bit. The mere fact that the Constitution itself lays out explicitly a process of amendment would render any such assertion invalid on it's face.
In 1860 almost all northerners, and all northern politicians, agreed that the Union had no right to interfere in slavery within a state. To be fair, a good many of the pols were probably lying, much like Obama claiming to be against gay marriage as recently as two years ago.
There was contention between the Northern and Southern states, even early on. Who's idea was it to only count slaves as 3/5 of a person, and who benefitted from that?
South - One crop Cotton. Eli Whitney Cotton Gin streamlined cotton in being able to remove seeds more quickly. The South was not able to sell cotton to other countries. Cotton was only able to be sold to the Northern textile industry.
The south had no industry - there was no manufacturer of ammunitions, steel, or any other manufacturing. The South started its own iron works when the vote for secession went into place.
The South wanted to export cotton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
