Thomas Jefferson, one of the leaders in writing the Constitution made the statement regarding the Union, that States that became unhappy under the Constitution, would be free to withdraw, without any animosity. You can find that in statements made by T.Jefferson. His feeling was that no State would be forced to stay. Too bad A. Lincoln did not understand that.
Actually, that text comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution continued to allow slave trade for another 20 years, but did not make it unlawful. Slavery was not the cause of the War of Southern Independence, but it was a political move by Lincoln to enlist the backing of the abolitionists. If you read more history of slavery in the United States, you will see that quite a few free blacks, bought black slaves for themselves. There were a large number of free blacks in the South at the time of the War.
There were also Jewish capos who collaborated with the Nazis. Does that somehow justify or rationalize the Holocaust, or absolve the Nazi German Regime?
Sorry, slavery was not the cause, but became the excuse Lincoln used to keep the Yankees fighting. Lincoln’s purpose at the beginning of the war was to prevent secession of the South.
Then what was? That argument is patently silly and no one but a nihilist or and extremist would ever make it. The South knew that Slavery was threatened as an institution and that there would be no slavery in new states effectively threatening their agrarian nirvana (for about 1% of the elitist white population)…
There is no comparison. If slavery was the reason, why did my Great-Grandfather free his slaves in order to go fight for Southern Independence? I cannot agree with your illustration.
Actually, quite the opposite. Lincoln didn’t want the war to be characterized as simply liberating slaves, although that was the corp issue. The Emancipation was in fact a tactic of war to weaken the South’s agrarian system dependent on essentially free labor. I think you’re vastly over estimating the zealousness of Yankees will to sustain the “fighting” over liberating blacks…
I don’t know. But why did he need slaves to begin with?
Thanks for your insults. However, the cause of the war was Secession by the South, which was NOT illegal. Read the writings of Thomas Jefferson for yourself, in regards to the Union of States.
I don’t think the legality or illegality of anything was based on the writings of Thomas Jefferson. And this issue came up in the Canadian conflicts between the Francophones of Quebec and the Anglophones in the early 1970s. It’s one thing to push for secession, it’s quite another to simply confiscate Federal Property (such as armories, buildings, equipment, etc.) without some sort of agreement. The Southeners didn’t like John Brown stealing their “property,” they didn’t have a problem stealing the property of the Federal gov’t…
He was a farmer, and was able to buy them. Remember, owners had to also take care of and feed their slaves. They were not cheap labor, they were an important investment. He could not continue to take care of them and fight the invading Yankees, too.
Then did the original Constitution make Secession illegal? Find it in the Constitution after the first ten Amendments and before 1860.
Why don’t you just post it?
Well, Texasag, you might try answering the question: Would there have been a Civil War if there had been no slavery in the south?
How would I know what your great-grandfather was thinking? I do know that there were counties north of here settled by Germans who vociferously opposed the Civil War and whose young, military age men were slaughtered by Confederates when they tried to flee to Mexico to avoid service in the Confederate Army. Go to Comfort and check the monument on the main square there.
One more thing: if the “issue” was Secession, as you say, please tell us Why the South wanted to secede. Is there really another reason besides slavery? It’s somewhat disingenuous to imply the the South wanted to secede ‘just because’ without acknowledging the real reason behind it. I’m sure all those poor farmers and settlers in Kansas weren’t being murdered because they were arguing over where the next McDonald’s would be built. I find it interesting that when discussing Secession with advocates of the Confederacy, the discussion tends to focus on narrowly-focused legalese, states’ rights, and so on to avoid discussing the underlying reason which was the ownership of human beings by other human beings.
Oh, and yes, slavery was an investment and it was cheap labor. If it wasn’t cheap labor, it wouldn’t have existed.
It’s clear even the US have their own share of souls still living in the past.
I think it would have been impossible for the South to win after 6 months of fight. Every war that goes into the road of atrition favours the mass and industrial equipped. Both were to be found in the North.
Just as the Axis definitely couldn’t win WWII once the US was brought in, with a doubt if even the USSR could have been forced to surrender.
You’re right, Texasag, it does come from the Declaration of Independence, which, one supposes, has no bearing on the Consitution whatsoever - unless, of course, it does. You don’t mind citing Thomas Jefferson when it supports your “position”, so it’s only equitable to acknowledge that Jefferson - who did write the Declaration, after all - said what he said. Jefferson it appears was very conflicted over this because a) he was sleeping with his number one house slave (and had children by her), b) knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that slavery was wrong and hopelessly illogical, and c) he compromised on the issue of slavery because he knew that no Union of the original 13 colonies would be possible unless he compromised on the issue of slavery, and d) in spite of everything, he knew that his fortune depended on owning other human beings.
Slavery, it seems, was an issue from the very beginning of the Republic.
The comparrison of what if the South won the war is like asking what if Germany won the war. I think slavery would have died off even if the South won the war because modernization and the industrial revolution showed that free manpower was not as reliable and useful as automated machinery. With public pressure from American trading partners, it would have been shown that Slavery is a non-viable commodity and public pressure would have shown that it was no longer needed nor wanted.
Well, you started the thread and didn’t see it that clearly at the time. But we all learn as time passes and have more information and reconsider our views. I’ve certainly changed my views on various issues on that basis.
I wouldn’t be too sure about that. The southern states got a lot of support from the parts of England / Britain dependent upon American cotton for their wealth as producers of finished cotton goods. And cotton production wasn’t improved by the industrial revolution, just the processing of the raw product still harvested by hand.
Britain did not give full effect to its own anti-slavery laws for many decades after they were enacted. For that matter, Australia was still importing slaves from the Pacific islands in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. My Portuguese paternal great grandfather served on, and deserted, a slave ship taking slaves from Africa in the 19th century. There wasn’t any shortage of customers for these slaves well after the American Civil War and in countries outside America, which doesn’t suggest that there would have been any pressure outside America to free its slaves or grant equality to their descendants.
The unfortunate fact of life is that there is often a gulf between what later are seen as morally desirable political and legal steps and practical implementation of them.
I’m old enough to remember the various civil rights conflicts in the South in the 1960s, a century after the 13th Amendment (not to mention a couple of centuries after the noble principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence) might have suggested that black slaves and their descendants had rights and should have been treated as equal to whites.
For that matter, Australia was still importing slaves from the Pacific islands in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. My Portuguese paternal great grandfather served on, and deserted, a slave ship taking slaves from Africa in the 19th century.
First of all I don’t understand why they would be taking slaves to Australia? There is no cotton growing there. Secondly the island has pigmies so if they needed slaves then why not just enslave the pigmies that were already living in Australia. Thirdly, I thought you were true blue Aussie. Now your telling me your only half Aussie and half Portuguese? Oh brother. I use to be so proud to tell all my work buddy’s I know a real Aussie, …well I can still pretend you are(no offense to your Portuguese side)…2:36 p.m. R.S. you have been in this thread for like 25 minutes…are you going to post something or did u fall asleep?..
Sugar cane, not cotton. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~auscqfha/kanakas.htm
And there is plenty of cotton growing here, albeit as an environmental disaster. http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/30/cubbie-station-was-never-sustainable/
This seems like hopelessly ignorant or just gratuitous bullshit. Don’t push your luck.
I’m 1/8th Portuguese. Other fractions include mostly Irish (1/8th from Portuguese great grandfather’s illiterate Irish wife and other Irish sources), Dutch and English (Cornish). I’m the sixth or seventh (can never remember which) generation of Europeans in Australia, going back to convict ancestors, except mine was an Irish soldier guarding convicts in Tasmania. You won’t find many Australians who’ve been here longer than that. Apart from Aborigines, who’ve been here for only about 40,000 years.
The real Aussie, whatever that might be, nowadays is a fairly recent migrant or the child of them, from countries all around the world. Here is one of them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz2zYsuCPCQ