Posted on 01/20/2014 1:42:16 PM PST by mhutcheson
Well, slavery was over both for political and economic reasons before the Civil war. And, the beginning of federal power stems from the Civil War, not from The Great Society.
Admittedly, things ran well until recently, but once the federal government crushed States rights, it was only a matter of time.
Slavery is more than just an ‘economic issue’.
“What a better world this would be if the South succession had been a achieved permanently.”
Whom or what did the South succeed (after all, “succession” follows the root word “succeed). Good God, man; if you can’t get the basic term correct please cease making any comment relative thereto.
Most people call it The Civil War or the War Between The States, either of which are more accurate (and less provocative).
Bookmark.
“In the name of intellectual honestly, southerners might as well admit that slavery was in fact, an important factor. Northerners should admit that it was far from the only factor, and that Lincoln broke the law on multiple occasions.”
Well, slavery itself was not the issue for the South. Rather, it was the desire and belief that what they (the South) developed and earned they should be able to keep; or, if taxes had to be paid by the South (which were the “revenues” Lincoln so eagerly wished to keep), that an equitable portion of those revenues should be spent on Southern infrastructure, Southern improvements, etc.
No one who is honest will deny that the Southern states got short shrift when it came to spending federal revenues.
BTW: How many of those 3/5th’s voters actually got to vote?
Oh, a little English tutor weighing in. Thanks. I’ll call you next time I need some estrogen.
You do know, I hope , that it didn’t matter whether they voted or not. What mattered was that the population of a state, including 3/5 of the slave population gave them a certain number in the House of Representatives.
“But the North won the war and as usual the winners get to write the history.”
It was ever thus.
“You do know, I hope , that it didn’t matter whether they voted or not.”
They were slaves. Perhaps there’s a point you’re missing here?
....Southerners might as well admit ...... Northerners should admit
You object to promoting standard English? You must love Ebonics and Spanglish.
There is a reason that Lincoln is referred as the Great Emancipator.
In the early days of the Republic there wasn’t a mechanism for personal taxation (income tax). There needed to be a way to determine the wealth of each state, and therefore its tax obligations and an amendment ws proposed that would determine wealth by population of each state.
The south howled that this was unfair since they had so many nig....black folk around. They didn’t want them to count at all (when it came to figuring taxes). The two sides haggled on what percentage slaves should count and agreed on 3/5ths but ultimately that measure died.
Then a mere four years later another quarrel arose revolving around the method of determining representation in Congress. This time the south squealed when it looked like their, er, slaves wouldn’t be counted (why should they be?!). Again the 3/5th rule was proposed and this time accepted.
The south, who didn’t want slaves to be counted when it would impact their pocketbook wanted them counted when it would impact their ability to bully congress.
And the losers write the myths.
I meant the Union. All the states. The South wanted to continue in slavery. In fact South Carolina wanted slavery kept in the Constitution otherwise they wouldn’t sign it and it needed the approval of all the then existing states to ratify it.
“Um, didn’t the south start it?”
Actually, no. If you recall your history (but then, maybe you don’t), first Buchanan, and then Lincoln attempted to send reinforcements and supplies to Fort Sumter (after Fort Moultrie was evacualted because it was less defensible than Sumter). That, in itself was an act of aggression towards South Carolina, which had already seceded. South Carolina fired on Sumter to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of a hostile military reservation in its own harbor (i.e., Charleston Harbor).
Look at it this way:
Who would be the aggressor? North Vietnam for sending troops and supplies to a fort it occupied in South Vietnam, and refused to relinquish after North Vietnam and South Vietnam split; or South Vietnam for firing artillery to stop that reinforcement and resupply?
In that scenario I would argue that North Vietnam initiated the conflict, and thus was the initial aggressor.
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.