Posted on 08/28/2019 7:21:47 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Read the US Constitution. The Founders gave specific reasons. The Confederacy were nothing more than a bunch of slave owning plutocrats.
Never said that the Civil War was all about slavery. The question was if there had been no slavery from the beginning of America, would there have been a Civil War?
My guess is that without slavery, the wealth and disparity between the North and South would not have developed in the same manner. Would there have been the wealth and the will to execute a decoupling from England through revolution. IDK but my guess is it would have been quite different.
If the Declaration of Independence articulates a right capable of overthrowing the thousand year old British Monarchy, it is certainly equal to the task of dissolving their participation in a government that is only "four score and seven years" old.
Apart from that, the US Constitution says nothing on a state becoming independent, because everything that needed to be said on the subject was said 11 years earlier in the Declaration of independence.
The Confederacy were nothing more than a bunch of slave owning plutocrats.
In terms of who was collecting the money from slave production, it would appear that New York City and Washington DC were making more money off of slavery than were these Southern plutocrats.
Yes, I agree plutocrats are bad, but how about we focus on the more powerful and destructive plutocrats in New York and Washington DC that are destroying us now, just as they destroyed the Southern states then?
Thanks. I had none of this information just a few years ago. I have only recently realized what actually happened in the Civil War, and I have only done so because I kept reading about so many things regarding it which didn't make any sense.
I wounder subsequently if the Americas would have had the will or power to execute the revolution and decouple from England without the wealth that slavery provided the North and the South?
I very greatly doubt they would have had either the will or the means to leave England without the wealth and power they had obtained through slavery and slave trading.
Oh for Christ sake, go take your meds.
Are you aware that almost all the media propaganda agencies are headquartered in New York?
“Never said that the Civil War was all about slavery.”
You are right; you didn’t say that.
The way I phrased my response implied you did, or might have.
I should have made it clear that others have said “it was all about slavery.”
It seems like you have said “if it hadn’t have been for slavery there would have been no war.”
It is a complicated thing. Of the 13 original states, 13 of them were slave states. But of that number, only 13 of them voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution.
I am not totally convinced that the Union slave state of Maryland sent troops to fight in the slave state of Virginia to free the slaves.
Or that the Union slave state of Delaware sent troops to fight in the slave state of North Carolina to free the slaves.
Or that the Union slave state of Kentucky sent troops to fight in the slave state of Tennessee to free the slaves. And so forth and so on.
Jefferson Davis once took an oath to defend and protect the pro-slavery CSA Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln took an oath - twice - to defend and protect the pro-slavery United States Constitution.
“Read the US Constitution. The Founders gave specific reasons.”
You will not find in the Constitution the specific reasons why the founders left England and established free and independent states. For that read the Declaration of Independence.
Oh, when I made my initial statement, it was more predicated on the presumption that minus slavery, there would’ve been so few Africans brought in to the point that it wouldn’t have been an issue. The only reason they were imported in the numbers they were was almost exclusively due to slavery.
It would’ve been curious to see the development of the South had we (White folk) “picked our own (proverbial) cotton.”
No doubt, many northerners did not consider their actions in order to end the slavery practices.
Again, the dicussion in not about what it was. Remove the word slavery from your argument and the discussion takes on another face. Virgina for one was the most industrialized of the slave states and minus the slavery issue would have lined up with the Northern states in any otherwise gendered secession. Without Virginia a secession would have been greatly different. Might have even been mutually agreed upon.
Slavery, if not the wedge, was certainly the glue that held the south together.
And yet we have quasi slavery today. It is interesting how a race can be convinced to serve the same masters' heritage and not see that they have been hoodwinked. The liberal servitude to free, free, free everything, and the destruction of the family have continued as this quasi slavery. This is where slavery resides.
Hopefully there will be an awakening.
I would like to see which speech this was. Where did Davis say that the Founders supported slavery?
Please provide a link or something specific/large enough to reach the original source.
Jefferson wanted to accuse the King of being responsible for bringing slavery to America in the first place.
The Founding Father's had every intention of dealing with slavery as an evil that had to be eliminated.
They might not have thought slaves equal in the sense of civil rights, but they did hold that all men were equal in human rights.
The early history of the Republic was the rise the anti-slavery sentiment that ended it in the North and was on the verge of ending it in the South until the cotton gin and the profitability of cotton. Only then did slavery began to be defended as a positive good instead of seen as an evil that would eventually be eliminated.
The Founder's made sure that slavery did not spread into the Northwest and wanted to stop it's spread.
Correct. They did give reasons though, didn’t they? And none that read had anything to do about keeping slaves.
mark
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .
“Again, the discussion in not about what it was.”
I have misunderstood or misattributed an earlier statement; I don’t want to press my luck.
“They might not have thought slaves equal in the sense of civil rights, but they did hold that all men were equal in human rights.”
That’s an interesting comment. Because of what “they” did to Indians and slaves before the Revolutionary War, and during, and after I did not realize the provisions of the Declaration of Independence were intended to apply to Indians and slaves.
I guess “merciless Indian savages” distracted my understanding.
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.