Community >> View Post
·
Post By
mjyoung

In Reply To
Gernot 
Manager

Location: St. Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,418
Subj: Re: Side note --- Gotta feel sorry for the buddists
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 10:57:00 pm EDT (Viewed 942 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Side note --- Gotta feel sorry for the buddists
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 at 08:52:55 pm EDT (Viewed 934 times)



    Quote:
    Don't fall for the lies, Incriptus! The Civil War WAS fought mainly over slavery.


    Quote:
    I've found it's mainly those EMBARRASSED about it all, that it's about "states' rights." It was the state's right to be a slave state, is about all it was about. \:\(


I would disagree. As a disclaimer, I'm not sure how I would be embarrassed over the Civil War. Both set of grandparents were first generation Americans, so I wouldn't have any ancestors fighting on either side of the war.

The basic reason for the Civil War were the southern states fearing a dissolution of state's rights, fears that were justified. The issue of slavery was an important one for numerous reasons. There was a betrayal of trust, since slavery was allowed with the constitution, then the importation of slaves was outlawed, the Missour compromise was was later broken, new states becoming anti-slavery and the unbalancing of power, etc.

Even today, there is really no such thing as state's rights anymore. All important governmental issues are decided on a national basis. But remember during this time period state's rights were huge. Northern states even used the argument of state's rights concerning their opinion that they didn't have to obey the Free Slave Act and return slaves to their owners.

Of course there were other issues. The north as a manufacturing based economy had more federal funds for developing infrastructure such as railroads. Also because of the different economies, many southerns were leaving the south for jobs in the north, and pretty much all new immigrants were also settling in the north instead of the south. Of course the main issue here was representation in the House, which was the more powerful part of Congress in those days.

Slavery was much more of an economic and political issue for the south. Slavery represented a huge part of the south's economic capital. The instant removal of that would be disastrous for the south, something that was felt after the Civil War during Reconstruction. Politically, it represented a huge loss in political representation for the House.

So if anything, it all came down to the same two reasons: (political) power and money.

It's also worth noting that slavery was dieing out. While the moral argument was gaining strength, the primary reason would be because slavery just wasn't as beneficial as it was in the past. If not for the invention of the cotton gin and the explosion of cotton growth, slavery would have died much earlier. Ironically, Whitney invented the cotton gin to end slavery.

Succession played an important role as well, since the southern states were under the assumption that there was nothing wrong with succeeding from the union. The constitution never addressed the issue. Imagine being able to get married, but not divorced. This issue is still being talk about today, as their is the occasional talk of succession with states/areas like Quebec, Connecticut, Texas, and Puerto Rico.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.5.3 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software