-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Civil War question...
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
JDub02
Diamond Member
From what I understand, the slavery issue didn't even come up until part way through the war and it only came up to keep the North focused and energized about the war.
One of the main points for the south was states vs. federal government. Up until the civil war, the states were more or less their own little countries held together by a small federal government. The civil war was the turning point to a more unified country.
One of the main points for the south was states vs. federal government. Up until the civil war, the states were more or less their own little countries held together by a small federal government. The civil war was the turning point to a more unified country.
K1052
Elite Member
My take on it:
1. A diverging concept of what the country should be between the northern and southern states.
2. Tariffs that were disadvantageous to the southern states.
3. Slavery, in the sense that it was an ongoing moral/social/economic issue that had never been solved to anyone?s satisfaction and greatly inflamed the political situation.
4. Loss of southern political power to the faster growing northern states.
1. A diverging concept of what the country should be between the northern and southern states.
2. Tariffs that were disadvantageous to the southern states.
3. Slavery, in the sense that it was an ongoing moral/social/economic issue that had never been solved to anyone?s satisfaction and greatly inflamed the political situation.
4. Loss of southern political power to the faster growing northern states.
shilala
Lifer
The slavery issue was an ongoing battle for 50 years prior to the war. The Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves happened half way through the war. That was the the brilliant political strategy Lincoln used to sell a war that nobody wanted.
Sounds like what's going on today. The parallels are really amazing.
It turns out there were a number of issues that everyone spewed on about, but no one would boil it down to the word "slaves", much like nobody will boil it down and say "oil" today.
Just as today, it was a bunch of powerful businessmen frothing with greed that were running the show.
The political situation of those times was just as sickening as the political situation of today.
"By the people, for the people". Hehe, yeah, right.
AyashiKaibutsu
Diamond Member
The civil war started because the South attacked a norhtern fort that was in southern territory... Everyone's given enough reasons why the southern stats split though.
State's rights. Slavery happened to be the case at hand, but it all mounts up to state's rights.
Ever look at the 10th Amendment? It's basically ignored by the Supreme Court since the Civil War. Any power not specifically covered by the Constitution automatically goes to the state. Can anyone show me where in the Constitution it says that the Federal Government can be involved in education? And yet the Fed's dictate all sorts of stuff to the states about education. The same was starting then and the issue was slavery. It's interesting how, if you read enough old stuff, you can see that before the Civil War people often referred to "these United States"... in other words, these several states that were united.... and that more and more after the war people said "the United States" which has more of a single entity of the Federal Government flavor to it.
Although slavery was a horrible evil and totally sinful, the south (according to the Constitution) was in the right and would have been better of had they not broken the nation.
Joe
Ever look at the 10th Amendment? It's basically ignored by the Supreme Court since the Civil War. Any power not specifically covered by the Constitution automatically goes to the state. Can anyone show me where in the Constitution it says that the Federal Government can be involved in education? And yet the Fed's dictate all sorts of stuff to the states about education. The same was starting then and the issue was slavery. It's interesting how, if you read enough old stuff, you can see that before the Civil War people often referred to "these United States"... in other words, these several states that were united.... and that more and more after the war people said "the United States" which has more of a single entity of the Federal Government flavor to it.
Although slavery was a horrible evil and totally sinful, the south (according to the Constitution) was in the right and would have been better of had they not broken the nation.
Joe
Well, one of my degrees is in history so let me give my not even close to knowledgable opinion.
1) Fort Sumter - the South took over the Fort. Some would call this the cause of the Civil War. I don't think that is the case. I think, Lincoln would have fought to preserve the Union anyway. To me this is the opening battle of the Civil War, not the cause. Lincoln didn't have to send the troops to Bull Run. He could have just decided to let the South secede
2) Lincoln - While Lincoln wasn't an abolisionist, Many people in the Republican Party were and the South decided they would secede if he got elected. Also, Lincoln didn't want to be known as the President that allowed the US to split apart. He decided to preserve the Union at all costs.
3) States Rights - The South loved to state that they were fighting for states rights, not slavery. Of course, the right they were fighting for was the right to own people.
4) Slavery - The South wanted to own people. Many Northerners were opposed to this.
As far as the South being right because of the 10th ammendment. yeah, right. Sure.
Here is the 10th Ammendment -
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."
Some would say that the South could own slave since nothing in the Constitution said that the South couldn't. Of course if you read the Fifth Ammendment, you see this
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
Notice the part that states "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? Slaves were never given due process of law, therefore it was unconstitutional for them to be deprived of liberty.
1) Fort Sumter - the South took over the Fort. Some would call this the cause of the Civil War. I don't think that is the case. I think, Lincoln would have fought to preserve the Union anyway. To me this is the opening battle of the Civil War, not the cause. Lincoln didn't have to send the troops to Bull Run. He could have just decided to let the South secede
2) Lincoln - While Lincoln wasn't an abolisionist, Many people in the Republican Party were and the South decided they would secede if he got elected. Also, Lincoln didn't want to be known as the President that allowed the US to split apart. He decided to preserve the Union at all costs.
3) States Rights - The South loved to state that they were fighting for states rights, not slavery. Of course, the right they were fighting for was the right to own people.
4) Slavery - The South wanted to own people. Many Northerners were opposed to this.
As far as the South being right because of the 10th ammendment. yeah, right. Sure.
Here is the 10th Ammendment -
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."
Some would say that the South could own slave since nothing in the Constitution said that the South couldn't. Of course if you read the Fifth Ammendment, you see this
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
Notice the part that states "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? Slaves were never given due process of law, therefore it was unconstitutional for them to be deprived of liberty.
cavemanmoron
Lifer
Wow more History than I recalled!!
Two things... first to sum up the politics that I don't think people think about today.
Republicans = People who wanted to free the slaves
Democrats = People who owned slaves and wanted slavery
Second.... didn't they get around the fifth amendment by claiming non-personhood or partial (3/5th) personhood?
Joe
0roo0roo
No Lifer
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind-from a defect in reasoning.
Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephans, of Georgia--Savannah; Georgia, March 21, 1861
Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephans, of Georgia--Savannah; Georgia, March 21, 1861
Now here's a question....
If you had lived back then and had lots of money, would it have been a more moral thing to buy as many slaves as you could and put them to work for you, but keep them well fed, healthy, give them privacy and maybe even (secretly) teach them to read/write and do math... thereby protecting them from being owned by cruel people... but then you would appear to support slavery. Or.... would it be more moral to not own any slaves, but that would mean that each one you DIDN'T tie up your money on would have a much worse life?
Joe
If you had lived back then and had lots of money, would it have been a more moral thing to buy as many slaves as you could and put them to work for you, but keep them well fed, healthy, give them privacy and maybe even (secretly) teach them to read/write and do math... thereby protecting them from being owned by cruel people... but then you would appear to support slavery. Or.... would it be more moral to not own any slaves, but that would mean that each one you DIDN'T tie up your money on would have a much worse life?
Joe
Here is the 3/5ths rule you mention:
" Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
This is from Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. The southern colonies demanded to count the slaves as people because it had been decided that a state's population was to be used in deciding how many representatives a state sent to the House. The Southern Colonies would have been happy to count the slaves as two people for the purpose of deciding how many representatives they sent to Congress. The Northern Colonies didn't want the slaves to be counted at all for this purpose but the North and South Compromised. The 3/5ths rule didn't mean that we thought slaves were 3/5 of a person. the South didn't think slaves were people at all.
If you look at the wording in the constitution, you'll notice it doesn't mentioning slavery at all (The original articles not the ammendments - of course). The Northern and Southern colonies couldn't agreed that they needed to form a united country but couldn't agree on slavery, so they decided to push the issue under the rug.
Btw, to the person who said this:
"Republicans = People who wanted to free the slaves
Democrats = People who owned slaves and wanted slavery "
This is too simplistic and only partially true. The Democratic Party couldn't agree on slavery so they had two candidates, a Northern one (Douglas)and a Southern one (Breckinridge). There was also another Southern Candidate (Bell). Now the Republicans did want to free slaves, to some degree or another. Lincoln was more moderate then the Congress.
SaberDicer
Banned
It was started by women bitching back and forth at each other and gossiping (Peggy Eaton)
All Joking aside, the south had a great sense of pride, and the civil war was cause by extremisim on both sides, the radical differences between the two cultures and the failure of goverment leaders to unite the two halves. Slavery was the major issue of the election because there was such a strong Northern resentment to slavery and a southern support for it.
The funny thing is, Lincoln wasn't even anti-slavery, the republican party of the area was agaisnt the expansion of slavery, not slavery itself. If you remember the Emancipation Proclaimation was only issued to slaves in rebellious states, Lincoln was a great president but he wasn't initally a huge pioneer of equal rights.
All Joking aside, the south had a great sense of pride, and the civil war was cause by extremisim on both sides, the radical differences between the two cultures and the failure of goverment leaders to unite the two halves. Slavery was the major issue of the election because there was such a strong Northern resentment to slavery and a southern support for it.
The funny thing is, Lincoln wasn't even anti-slavery, the republican party of the area was agaisnt the expansion of slavery, not slavery itself. If you remember the Emancipation Proclaimation was only issued to slaves in rebellious states, Lincoln was a great president but he wasn't initally a huge pioneer of equal rights.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
