3 ms·

> The South didn't revolt over something Lincoln said, they revolted over the failure to secure their desire for expansion of slavery into the territories Ther

by pdonis 4y ago

> The South didn't revolt over something Lincoln said, they revolted over the failure to secure their desire for expansion of slavery into the territories There was no such desire on the South's part, although the claim that there was was common in abolitionist propaganda of the time. The South already knew that none of the territories being added to the Union at that time were suitable for the kind of economy based on slavery that they had in the established Southern states. > which they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the Union No, what they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the Union was...the continuing vociferous demands on the part of abolitionists over decades for the abolition of slavery, which continued to gain more political traction over time. Lincoln's election as a Republican just pushed them over the edge (although another strong signal was sent a couple of years before when all of the abolitionists who kept talking about how we should let the legal process work and abide by its decisions, suddenly switched gears and started talking about ignoring the legal process after the Dred Scott decision). There is no need to attribute fictitious motives of "expansion of slavery" to the South to account for secession. The documented historical facts of the abolitionist movement are more than enough.

myko 4y ago
Interestingly one of the reasons the south began their war over the right to own people was indeed because they were mad they couldn't force other states in the union to treat Black folks as slaves. Read up on the Fugitive Slave Act (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-slave-act https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-...) Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states' rights". There was one right they were primarily concerned with - owning people.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > they were mad they couldn't force other states in the union to treat Black folks as slaves Meaning, I take it, that the couldn't trust northern states to actually obey the Fugitive Slave Act? Even though there was an explicit provision in the Constitution about it? > Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states rights" That's not a "modern" argument. It's the argument the south actually made at the time. And as a matter of law, they were right: both the Constitution and Federal law laid a legal duty on northern states, which northern states refused to obey. Of course, our "modern" view is that it's perfectly OK to ignore a law if you think it's "wrong"; and this was the argument the north made for ignoring the Fugitive Slave Act: that slavery was wrong, so nobody had any duty to obey a law requiring them to support slavery in any way. Ironic considering that the same "modern" people who make such arguments also talk about how having a rule of law, where people can't just arbitrarily ignore laws they don't like, is a good thing. The truth is that both sides at the time of the civil war were wrong. The south was wrong because it was using arguments about rights and the rule of law to deny rights to the slaves. But the north was also wrong because it was undermining the very institution of law, which is wrong even if it's in a good cause, because the institution of law is necessary to have a civil society at all.
  - myko 4y ago
    With the FSA the south was pushing to force free states to kidnap individuals, something that was illegal to do. There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals. In fact there are many rights that explicitly disallow that! The south crying about their inability to force free states to enslave people is an example of the hypocrisy of the modern argument that the south primarily fought over "states' rights" and not slavery, which is 100% bullshit. Read what the southern states said about their reasons for exiting the union: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... The right they talk about? The right to own people. Slavery. > That's not a "modern" argument The southern states were concerned with slavery at the time the war started, not "states rights" - as pointed out, they were perfectly happy to attempt to force free states to kidnap people. "States' rights" became the battle cry in the next century, read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy Prior to then "states' rights" was not something heavily pushed by the south regarding the Civil War, they didn't think that way generally. As pointed out they were happy to reject the northern states' rights to disallow slavery! > The truth is that both sides at the time of the civil war were wrong. > But the north was also wrong because it was undermining the very institution of law No, only the south was wrong here.
    - pdonis 4y ago
      > Prior to then "states' rights" was not something heavily pushed by the south, they didn't think that way generally. You must be joking. Pushing for states' rights by southern states goes back at least all the way to the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in the late 1790s, and arguably was an important topic for them at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Relying on Wikipedia as your source on a topic like this is not a good idea.
    - pdonis 4y ago
      > There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals. If you want to argue that the explicit Constitutional provision about fugitive slaves (Article IV, Section 2, last clause) is inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution, you can try to make that argument. But just claiming that the Constitution doesn't allow fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, and calling doing so "kidnapping" without any supporting argument, when the Constitution has an explicit provision that requires fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, is nonsense. You can't just ignore parts of the Constitution you don't like. > only the south was wrong here I don't think you have fully thought through your position.

by pdonis 4y ago

myko 4y ago

Interestingly one of the reasons the south began their war over the right to own people was indeed because they were mad they couldn't force other states in the union to treat Black folks as slaves. Read up on the Fugitive Slave Act (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-slave-act https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-...) Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states' rights". There was one right they were primarily concerned with - owning people.

pdonis 4y ago
> they were mad they couldn't force other states in the union to treat Black folks as slaves Meaning, I take it, that the couldn't trust northern states to actually obey the Fugitive Slave Act? Even though there was an explicit provision in the Constitution about it? > Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states rights" That's not a "modern" argument. It's the argument the south actually made at the time. And as a matter of law, they were right: both the Constitution and Federal law laid a legal duty on northern states, which northern states refused to obey. Of course, our "modern" view is that it's perfectly OK to ignore a law if you think it's "wrong"; and this was the argument the north made for ignoring the Fugitive Slave Act: that slavery was wrong, so nobody had any duty to obey a law requiring them to support slavery in any way. Ironic considering that the same "modern" people who make such arguments also talk about how having a rule of law, where people can't just arbitrarily ignore laws they don't like, is a good thing. The truth is that both sides at the time of the civil war were wrong. The south was wrong because it was using arguments about rights and the rule of law to deny rights to the slaves. But the north was also wrong because it was undermining the very institution of law, which is wrong even if it's in a good cause, because the institution of law is necessary to have a civil society at all.
- myko 4y ago
  With the FSA the south was pushing to force free states to kidnap individuals, something that was illegal to do. There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals. In fact there are many rights that explicitly disallow that! The south crying about their inability to force free states to enslave people is an example of the hypocrisy of the modern argument that the south primarily fought over "states' rights" and not slavery, which is 100% bullshit. Read what the southern states said about their reasons for exiting the union: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... The right they talk about? The right to own people. Slavery. > That's not a "modern" argument The southern states were concerned with slavery at the time the war started, not "states rights" - as pointed out, they were perfectly happy to attempt to force free states to kidnap people. "States' rights" became the battle cry in the next century, read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy Prior to then "states' rights" was not something heavily pushed by the south regarding the Civil War, they didn't think that way generally. As pointed out they were happy to reject the northern states' rights to disallow slavery! > The truth is that both sides at the time of the civil war were wrong. > But the north was also wrong because it was undermining the very institution of law No, only the south was wrong here.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > Prior to then "states' rights" was not something heavily pushed by the south, they didn't think that way generally. You must be joking. Pushing for states' rights by southern states goes back at least all the way to the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in the late 1790s, and arguably was an important topic for them at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Relying on Wikipedia as your source on a topic like this is not a good idea.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > There's no constitutional provision for allowing kidnapping and enslaving individuals. If you want to argue that the explicit Constitutional provision about fugitive slaves (Article IV, Section 2, last clause) is inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution, you can try to make that argument. But just claiming that the Constitution doesn't allow fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, and calling doing so "kidnapping" without any supporting argument, when the Constitution has an explicit provision that requires fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, is nonsense. You can't just ignore parts of the Constitution you don't like. > only the south was wrong here I don't think you have fully thought through your position.