A Step In The Right Direction

[Deepcrush]

Conclusion: you're full of s**t.

Good job dumbass... quote a source from gmail.com

Also, what does this have to do with what the states were doing before the war other then nothing? For someone who pretends to study history, you're pretty pathetic.

You're right - re-reading they use the term "slave" rather than any racial definition.

Way to generalize that which escapes you.

[stitch626]

The reason for the war was not remove/keep slavery. It was all about who was making the rules.

The CSA states did not like the Federal government making any laws about what they could and couldn't do. Hence the part in you first quote Seafort, about not making laws against slavery. That only applied to the "new" federal government (for the CSA if they won), not to individual states.

[McAvoy]

The war is a bunch of things. Deepcrush is correct in that many in the Southern states felt they were being invaded and had to defend their land. It's also correct that slavery was a big issue. Rule making as well. It was also about the expansion of the West as well. Would slavery go West as well? Would the Southern states keep their slaves below a certain line? (Look at the state lines in the US, you will find there is a near continous line going across the United States, this line seperated the free slaves of the North and the slaves states of the South).

There is also a bit of honor code as well back then. You insult someone, you could get killed for besmitching their honor.

[Captain Seafort]

The reason for the war was not remove/keep slavery. It was all about who was making the rules.

Bullshit. On the northern side I agree that the main driver was anti-secessionist rather than abolitionist, but on the southern side the reasoning was clear - the frequent mentions of slavery both in documents of secession and in the CSA constitution made that clear

The CSA states did not like the Federal government making any laws about what they could and couldn't do. Hence the part in you first quote Seafort, about not making laws against slavery. That only applied to the "new" federal government (for the CSA if they won), not to individual states.

Wrong - it's made crystal clear in all three sections that any law prohibiting slavery would be unconstitutional. There's no mention whatsoever restricting that prohibition to Congress.

I thought we'd got rid of this nonsense with T_A's first disappearance.

[stitch626]

You also missed the slave trade itself was to be banned:

The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

and here

Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

Also:

The ratification of the conventions of five States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.

This constitution only took the ratification of five states, and was in place until the government was put in place (which never happened because the war ended against the CSA).
Many of the CSA states did not care much about slaves (at least not as much as the ones who ratified the constitution). They just wanted the freedom to determine whether they could have them or not, as opposed to the Feds deciding.

documents of secession

Link please.

I thought we'd got rid of this nonsense with T_A's first disappearance.

Last time I checked, no one in this thread has made inaccurate statements about MLK.


Quick question, wasn't most of the industry in the north, such as the factories? Wouldn't limiting trade with the north after the war severely weaken the south?

[Deepcrush]

Last time I checked, no one in this thread has made inaccurate statements about MLK.

Its kind of funny to me that Seafort would compare us to T_A because of an issue that slavery was a part of... yet believed it was fully acceptable for England to use slaves at the same time.

Quick question, wasn't most of the industry in the north, such as the factories? Wouldn't limiting trade with the north after the war severely weaken the south?

No, most of the industry was in the North. The south provided most of what was being traded for the US as a whole. Which made keeping the southern states so important.

[BigJKU316]

The reason for the war was not remove/keep slavery. It was all about who was making the rules.

The CSA states did not like the Federal government making any laws about what they could and couldn't do. Hence the part in you first quote Seafort, about not making laws against slavery. That only applied to the "new" federal government (for the CSA if they won), not to individual states.

To a large degree this is mostly true (though people are being intellectually dishonest if we pretend that Slavery was not issue number 1 in regard to rules they feared would be imposed upon them). But it is important that we remember one thing. The South was fine with the rules of the US Constitution so long as those rules favored them, as they did up through the election of Lincoln. Once it started to tip as Western States came in as Free territory (which was not suited to slave agriculture anyway) they saw the writting on the wall and bolted.

So yeah, it was about state rights as soon as they felt they had lost the hammer. When they had it they felt just fine enforcing the fugative slave law on Northern States that wanted nothing to do with that. It was the South's decision to take its ball and go home that kicked off the conflict.

It is just somewhat silly on the part of the South to claim it was about "States Rights" when they were such firm supporters of a Federal Law that the Northern States hated for years when no a single law had yet even been directed against them (as Lincoln had not yet taken office when they started leaving). It was not about states rights. It was about the fact that the North and West were outgrowing them and would eventually come to dominate them politically.

[Mikey]

It's ludicrouse to boil reasons for the war down to one or two simple ones, on either side. The point herein is that there are two points-of-view here, and both are true:

Deep - Lee in particular, and some Southern states, were not pro-slavery, nor did they fight on the behalf of keeping the practice alive.

Seafort - Lee, and the non-slave reb states, fought for the South... which ended up (perhaps non-intentionally) meaning fighting for the pro-slave side. We can all agree that Erwin Rommel most certainly wasn't a Nazi nor a proponent of their ideals; however, he fought (excellently) for the Nazi side.

[Captain Seafort]

You also missed the slave trade itself was to be banned:

Utterly irrelevant. We're not talking about the slave trade, we're talking about slavery itself.

This constitution only took the ratification of five states,

So what?

was in place until the government was put in place

Evidence?

(which never happened because the war ended against the CSA).

So what exactly was Jefferson Davis doing if there was no government?

Many of the CSA states did not care much about slaves (at least not as much as the ones who ratified the constitution). They just wanted the freedom to determine whether they could have them or not, as opposed to the Feds deciding.

1) How does the fact that the US Constitution in it's original form was a racist document excuse the CSA from the charge of racism.

documents of secession

Link please.

South Carolina
Mississippi
Georgia
Texas

Last time I checked, no one in this thread has made inaccurate statements about MLK.

And the last time I checked T_A was not solely reviled for such statements, but those in support of the Confederacy and his delusion that the fundamental cause of the US Civil War was "states' rights" and not slavery.

Quick question, wasn't most of the industry in the north, such as the factories? Wouldn't limiting trade with the north after the war severely weaken the south?

Correct - northern superiority in industry and manpower was the key reason the south lost.

[Captain Seafort]

Its kind of funny to me that Seafort would compare us to T_A because of an issue that slavery was a part of... yet believed it was fully acceptable for England to use slaves at the same time.

Get a history book Deep. Slavery was banned in most of the Empire with effect from 1 April 1834, and in the territories of the East India Company in 1843.

[Mikey]

Correct - northern superiority in industry and manpower was the key reason the south lost.

And, in a related way, the Union's blockade of the South - which helped stem the brisk trade with the CSA which England conducted.

Just sayin'.

[Captain Seafort]

And, in a related way, the Union's blockade of the South - which helped stem the brisk trade with the CSA which England conducted.

Impossible - England hasn't traded with anyone for over three hundred years.

[Sonic Glitch]

And, in a related way, the Union's blockade of the South - which helped stem the brisk trade with the CSA which England conducted.

Impossible - England hasn't traded with anyone for over three hundred years.

So you haven't imported anything in 300 years? Wow.. England must be more self-sufficient than I thought, given their decision to focus on the textile industry and such.

[Captain Seafort]

So you haven't imported anything in 300 years?

Of course we have, I didn't say we hadn't.

[Sonic Glitch]

So you haven't imported anything in 300 years?

Of course we have, I didn't say we hadn't.

Impossible - England hasn't traded with anyone for over three hundred years.

Did I misinterpret?