Posted on 08/12/2020 2:31:56 PM PDT by Jonty30
I think we can agree that it had nothing to do with caring about the slaves.
I was thinking that 4 million sudden extra bodies in the poor southern economy would have the same effect as high immigration, keeping the wages of the poorest workers suppressed and it would keep the South from developing economically, while the North would benefit from their ownership of Southern industries.
Does that sound about right or am I wrong on this?
you’re wrong
Yes you are wrong
There had been growing movement against slavery in Western Europe for a long time. France and England had both outlawed the practice. England would sink any slave ship it found on the high seas
Slavery while practiced was still recognized as as evil in a free society.
I could go on but slavery held the south back economically and that is why they lost the war.
Compete with them for jobs? The forced labor already accomplished that by locking people out of jobs and stifling the existence of a labor market. So, yes, they were impoverished in the South - and slavery helped to accomplish that.
Nope bro, I think I'll stay. The lefties inability to comprehend history and politics is seemingly rivaled only by your own. They seem to have similar reading comprehension problems as well. The "3/5 of a person" canard is a leftist lie. You bought it, so you go hang with your DUmmie buddies and we adults will carry on the converstion.
But before you go, let me try to explain it simply, so that you might understand. The South wanted to count every slave in the population because they knew that would give them control of the House. The North needed the South in the Union and found it politically expedient to compromise and count only a portion, that being 3/5. Hence the name 3/5 Compromise.
In this way it is similar to the illegal alien issue whereby democrats want to count every illegal because it maximizes their political power while many Republicans of today find it expedient to compromise on the issue.
Dig?
It had nothing to do with their worth or lack of it as human beings. It was the non-slave North that wanted less than full credit to be given to the South for their slave population. The South wanted slaves counted fully as much as all other citizens which would have given them more Congressional seats. It was this three-fifths compromise between fully counting them, favored by the South, and not counting them at all, favored by the North, that allowed the Constitution to be ratified. The damnable lie that it was a reflection on a slaves worth as a human being has been pushed in government schools for three generations.
Lincoln wanted slavery preserved in the Constitution.
From Lincoln's inaugural speech:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
Incorrect. Lincoln actually didn’t free any slaves as a practical matter. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in Confederate states, and only to areas of those states not yet under Federal military control. Slavery wasn’t ended until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which like any amendment, was something that the POTUS played no direct role in implementing, although Lincoln did lead the way in pushing the amendment’s passage in Congress.
The war between the states was about slavery, in the same way that the American Revolution was about tea.
I think that was one factor.
I think you mean President Buchanan.
But, but... The Democrats changed their position from “The Negro is inferior so should be kept out of society” to “the Negro is inferior and should be given advantages like children”.
Basically, the Dem position on Negroes is VERY consistent: they’re inferior.
Disgusting.
Go on BRO! Show us your infinite lack of knowledge.
DIG?
Actually it was even a bit more complex than that, although you got the gist of it. The decennial enumeration of population called for by the Constitution served two purposes: apportionment of representatives in the House and imposition of taxes. Higher population meant more representation, but also higher taxation. The South and North both wanted to have it both ways regarding slaves. The South wanted slaves counted for representation purposes but not counted at all for taxation. The North wanted the reverse. The compromise was to include 3/5 of the s number of slaves in the census count for both taxation and representation.
The democrat party always has, and always will be, a den of traitors and thieves, liars and perverts.
To defend the very notion of the support of their lying thieving perversion should be repugnant to any liberty loving citizen of this nation.
We have now entered another period of American history where the evil again rears its ugly head. And that head has democrat stamped all over it.
President Buchanan also backed the amendment. Lincoln was a behind the scenes promoter
Wrong. He wasn’t even in office yet.
IMO, they viewed it as a matter of economic survival and as the debate went on in the early 1800's they took it as a given.
Most everybody on this thread talks about the "North" and the "South", which I think would be an accurate breakdown pre-revolutionary war, and by necessity for the short period DURING the Civil War. The war was an issue that divided people into two camps.
For most of the rest of the time, as the country grew, it would be more accurate to say there was the Northeast, the South, and the West. The population of the West was rapidly expanding as more and more land was settled for farming. Their primary market was the Northeast where they couldn't grow enough food to feed all the people living in the cities. The South could grow enough food to feed their own population and not much more. The Northeast was largely a manufacturing region, and their major new market in the US was all the new settlers in the west. The settlers in the west were either new immigrants, who had no history of slave-owning, and second generation northeasterners, who saw the potential of a better life than working for subsistence wages in northeast factories. Those people relocating out of the northeastern states also had no history of slave-owning.
Transportation networks were developed to service this back and forth flow of agricultural products one way, and manufactured goods the other. The south was relatively stagnant in terms of population and there was no incentive to develop much in the way of additional transportation networks to and from the south. They couldn't compete with the west in agricultural production on the virgin soils opened up to farming, and they couldn't compete with the northeast in manufacturing. Importing and exporting continually increased through the ports of the northeast while shipping from southern ports stayed the same or dropped.
The populations of the west and northeast were rapidly expanding, and feeding each others economies. The population growth in those two areas led to a US government that could ignore the south's wishes and wants to a much larger degree that was the case at the time of the country's founding. The west and the northeast became economically dependent on each other, and neither region had much in common philosophically with a population of slave owners.
Without funding from any income taxes, the country relied to a large extent on tariffs. The higher the tariffs, the better the northeast manufacturers did while the worse the south did. The people of the west didn't think like the northeasterners either. They had much more of an independent nature. But their economic interests tied them together much more than either region had with the south.
The shooting war didn’t begin with the secession. It didn’t begin when Lincoln called up volunteers. It didn’t begin with any action by Lincoln or any Union commander. It began when the state of South Carolina demanded that Fort Sumter be surrendered, and when that fort was forcibly taken by the SC militia when it’s commander refused to surrender.
It’s likely that some other event would have precipitated the conflict had Sumter not been attacked, but let’s stick with actually history — the first shots of the war were fired by Confederate forces, not Union forces.
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.