[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"] Casualties or no casualties it was still an act of aggression by South Carolina. If there had been casualties would your opinion be different? Because I am pretty sure SC was not purposefully aiming away from people with their canon balls. It is disputable at least as to whether South Carolina had the rights to federal forts held withing their boundaries. At the very least they should have offered some concessions in exchange for the forts to try and convince the feds to leave. In hindsight that probably wouldn't have worked considering Lincoln, but I think at the very least South Carolina was way out of line by attacking federal troops. PlzhelpmelearnLincoln send provisions..they assumed he was trying to occupy their state...which is understandable..and my opinion would not be different..they had a right to attack those they saw as invaders.. Invaders? C'mon, these are their fellow countrymen we are talking about here, by labeling them invaders you are drastically oversimplifying the situation. Until South Carolina seceded the federal government had jurisdiction there, and to expect them to hand over all their stuff to SC with no strings attached is a little bit far fetched I'd say.. Buchanan and Lincoln had the right to send provisions considering it was a federal fort. They had no right to fire on these men considering, to my knowledge, they made no attempt at reaching a peaceful agreement besides giving them an ultimatum to leave or die. But you're disregarding all the suspicion and such they had towards Lincoln as well..he was a Republican..and in the South Republicans were viewed as the one's who supported the radical actions of John Brown...and they were invaders...they were troops from somewhere not part of the Confederacy..Lincoln should have known to pull the Federal troops out as it would cause suspicion and result in some sort of violent action..which in the end it did..
The War of the States..(Includes SHORT summary for you lazy people :P)..
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] Lincoln send provisions..they assumed he was trying to occupy their state...which is understandable..and my opinion would not be different..they had a right to attack those they saw as invaders..Xx_Hopeless_xXInvaders? C'mon, these are their fellow countrymen we are talking about here, by labeling them invaders you are drastically oversimplifying the situation. Until South Carolina seceded the federal government had jurisdiction there, and to expect them to hand over all their stuff to SC with no strings attached is a little bit far fetched I'd say.. Buchanan and Lincoln had the right to send provisions considering it was a federal fort. They had no right to fire on these men considering, to my knowledge, they made no attempt at reaching a peaceful agreement besides giving them an ultimatum to leave or die. But you're disregarding all the suspicion and such they had towards Lincoln as well..he was a Republican..and in the South Republicans were viewed as the one's who supported the radical actions of John Brown...and they were invaders...they were troops from somewhere not part of the Confederacy..Lincoln should have known to pull the Federal troops out as it would cause suspicion and result in some sort of violent action..which in the end it did.. I can understand their suspicion about Lincoln, but I guess I can't say that taking military action based on that suspicion without trying other methods first is just not wise. It was federal property and Lincoln was under no obligation to surrender property that belonged to his government, especially without receiving anything in return. Would it have prevented the war if he would have? Maybe, but whether or not Lincoln knew it would lead to violence is irrelevant, because South Carolina became violent. If federal troops had fired on South Carolina it would be a different story. Granted, Lincoln didn't help when he was inaugurated and declared that all the secessions were void, but don't you think that SC should have maybe been a little slower in bombarding Sumter?
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]I think by the time Lincoln sent those troops (which the south did instigate by firing on Sumter) it was too late to be avoided, at least with the goals Lincoln had in mind. Lincoln ultimately wanted to preserve the Union at all costs and many southern states by seceding made military action seem like the only method to do it. I think they should have been slower to actually secede until there were no other alternatives. Also, are you saying that deporting the slaves was a good idea? No, I think sending the troops was a rash decision. They felt they were being invaded because he resupplied Fort Sumter, a Fort that stood for a Government they no longer wanted to be part of. And Deporting the slaves definitely would have helped end slavery, if you sent them back to Africa there really wouldn't even be a question of slavery.Good read Hopeless. Took me like..5 minutes to get through. I believe if the slaves were deported and we introduced the South to the idea of Industrial work it may have been avoided. Lincoln should not have sent 75,000 troops to quell the rebellion either.
Plzhelpmelearn
Did Lincoln do a lot of questionable things during the Civil War? Yes he did. Was a war a necessary to end slavery in the U.S? No it wasn't - no other country needed to fight a war to end slavery. But it's misleading to position the Civil War as some great, cosmic battle over states' rights. Yes, the southern states' were fighting for certain rights, primarily the right to maintain the institution of slavery. Slavery was the "cornerstone" of the confederacy, as stated by the confederacy's own vice president, Alexander Stephens. There wouldn't have been a civil war in the U.S. had slavery not existed.-Sun_Tzu-Tariffs were also an issue as they hurt the southern states. Lincoln did not engage in the war to end slavery. That did become a bi product...but that was not the intent.
the South Carolina citizens/militia had every right to fire upon the Fort as it was occupied by troops from the federal government of which they no longer belonged to..Xx_Hopeless_xX
Was the fort not federal property?
[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]the South Carolina citizens/militia had every right to fire upon the Fort as it was occupied by troops from the federal government of which they no longer belonged to..psychobrew
Was the fort not federal property?
South Carolina Seceded. The Fort was no Longer a part of the same Government. When Lincoln sent provisions it appeared as if he was getting ready for an attack on the state.[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]the South Carolina citizens/militia had every right to fire upon the Fort as it was occupied by troops from the federal government of which they no longer belonged to..Snipes_2
Was the fort not federal property?
South Carolina Seceded. The Fort was no Longer a part of the same Government. When Lincoln sent provisions it appeared as if he was getting ready for an attack on the state. The Federal Government did not recognize their right to secede.[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="psychobrew"]South Carolina Seceded. The Fort was no Longer a part of the same Government. When Lincoln sent provisions it appeared as if he was getting ready for an attack on the state. The Federal Government did not recognize their right to secede. Yeah, I know.Was the fort not federal property?
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Did Lincoln do a lot of questionable things during the Civil War? Yes he did. Was a war a necessary to end slavery in the U.S? No it wasn't - no other country needed to fight a war to end slavery. But it's misleading to position the Civil War as some great, cosmic battle over states' rights. Yes, the southern states' were fighting for certain rights, primarily the right to maintain the institution of slavery. Slavery was the "cornerstone" of the confederacy, as stated by the confederacy's own vice president, Alexander Stephens. There wouldn't have been a civil war in the U.S. had slavery not existed.LJS9502_basicTariffs were also an issue as they hurt the southern states. Lincoln did not engage in the war to end slavery. That did become a bi product...but that was not the intent. No, Lincoln didn't engage in the war to end slavery (all Lincoln cared about, especially early on, was keeping the U.S. together), but the south engaged in the war to maintain slavery.
Holy hell...Can we at least get a summary?spazzx625
Summary: A poster that generally has rather right wing views is trying to justify the Confederacy, and even went so far as to call it The War of the States and The War for Southern Independence.
Shocking, I've never seen that one before.
Nope, it's the Civil War. Sorry. The South lost, as they should have. Get over it.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Did Lincoln do a lot of questionable things during the Civil War? Yes he did. Was a war a necessary to end slavery in the U.S? No it wasn't - no other country needed to fight a war to end slavery. But it's misleading to position the Civil War as some great, cosmic battle over states' rights. Yes, the southern states' were fighting for certain rights, primarily the right to maintain the institution of slavery. Slavery was the "cornerstone" of the confederacy, as stated by the confederacy's own vice president, Alexander Stephens. There wouldn't have been a civil war in the U.S. had slavery not existed.-Sun_Tzu-Tariffs were also an issue as they hurt the southern states. Lincoln did not engage in the war to end slavery. That did become a bi product...but that was not the intent. No, Lincoln didn't engage in the war to end slavery (all Lincoln cared about, especially early on, was keeping the U.S. together), but the south engaged in the war to maintain slavery.T^hat was only ONE reason they engaged.....
.
Diametraphine
totally, this.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]T^hat was only ONE reason they engaged.....LJS9502_basicAnd it was the main reason. No it wasn't. It was the last straw so to speak but it wasn't the main reason.....least not according to the history I've read and studied in college. Yes it was the main reason. When you read the speeches and the letters of Confederate politicians, slavery is the biggest issue to them - e.g. Vice President Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech" where he proclaimed that the Confederacy was founded on maintaining slavery, and how slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy. The biggest political issue of the day was slavery, and that was the main issue that was being fought over during the civil war.
[QUOTE="spazzx625"]Holy hell...Can we at least get a summary?StopThePresses
Summary: A poster that generally has rather right wing views is trying to justify the Confederacy, and even went so far as to call it The War of the States and The War for Southern Independence.
Shocking, I've never seen that one before.
Nope, it's the Civil War. Sorry. The South lost, as they should have. Get over it. That's not true if you actually read it. :/
Oh, and This is interesting.
tl;dr
Xx_Hopeless_xX
is that a summary???!!!!
"That is the most slanted, self-serving, fallacy-ridden piece on the Civil War I have ever seen. First of all, the continual theme is that of equivocation, you continually use broad terms like the North and the South to refer to a variety of seperate entities, except when it suits your own purposes. I must ask, you didn't happen to pick up this argumentation during your studies at Beck U, did you? Anyways, this is faulty logic of the highest, or should I say lowest order.""Basically, the whole original post is trash, unabashed revisionism. you equivocate, you slant, you spin, and you do everything in your power to villify some and exonerate others based on nothing but your own personal feelings on a broad philosophy of liberty""You have no rights to moral indignation when you ignore your own sins against morality." I lol'd. No really. You can't keep the discussion civilized? You have to resort to sarcasm and unabashed insults?That is the most slanted, self-serving, fallacy-ridden piece on the Civil War I have ever seen. First of all, the continual theme is that of equivocation, you continually use broad terms like the North and the South to refer to a variety of seperate entities, except when it suits your own purposes. I must ask, you didn't happen to pick up this argumentation during your studies at Beck U, did you? Anyways, this is faulty logic of the highest, or should I say lowest order. John Brown made a murderous attempt to end slavery, there were Northern writers who voiced support for him, therefore all Northerners, including the Union government were committed to a murderous plot to kill all Southerners, makes perfect sense. Oh, but that same all-encompassing logic doesn't count for the Southern side, no they were mostly subsistence farmers. It's okay tio generalize all Northern citizens as a murderous horde, but the Southerners were all simple folk just tryin to get by. Furthermore, as to the number of abolitionist groups in the South, why do you think that is? Do you think there may be a logical reason for that other than your specious claim of Northerners not caring about slavery? Perhaps because slavery was more rampant in the South? Perhaps because operating in the South doesn't speak to where they originally hailed from? Naw, those explanations are too logical.
In regards to Lincoln engaging in the war for reasons other than slavery, I don't think anyone has ever skipped around that fact, it's very well-known and taught in U.S. history. That also doesn't cfhange the fact that he was THE person who freed the slaves, he was the one that wrote the speech that gave them hope. Even if this was more of a political concession, it could be argued that many of his earilier views supporting slavery and division were a political concession, not to mention that people are always bound to a degree to the customs of their time. This does not excuse all his views, but these views do not eliminate the impact he had on this country. There are no paragons in life, there is no one that is perfect. That doesn't mean that we can't admire a man like Abraham Lincoln in spite of his flaws, or criticize him in spite of his contributions. At any rate, your depiction of him as an ogre is completely unwarranted by either strand of logic. The man, as outlined in his campaign speeches, sought unity and was prepared to achieve unity through negotiation rather than force. Fort Sumter forced his hand before he had a chance to try and resolve the situation peacefully.
As to soldiers fighting for patriotism, that's how it always is any any and every war ever fought. Soldiers believe in abstract ideals and in service to their country, they are made to serve the whims of those who control the nation. German soldiers fought for patriotism in World War two, as did British, French, Italian, Japanese, and American soldiers, as did all those countries in World War One, and going back through every war that was ever fought. The leaders, the politicians argue over the reasons to go to war, the soldiers go to war to fight for their country. It doesn't matter what a soldier thought, Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy weresending their soldiers to fightto preserve slavery, even if their soldiers weren't going to war because they wanted to preserve slavery.
Basically, the whole original post is trash, unabashed revisionism. you equivocate, you slant, you spin, and you do everything in your power to villify some and exonerate others based on nothing but your own personal feelings on a braod philosophy of liberty. What could've been done different? Maybe those arrogant imperialist settlers who came here from Europe could've not taken Africans from their homeland and sold them into slavery, maybe our founding fathers could've given equal rights to all men without the asteriks, maybe instead of comprimising with people who made their fortunes off of human misery they could've sent federal troops to forcefully liberate the slaves, hell maybe John Brown could've gotten the job done, because even if he murdered every slave owner in the South it would still be less of a crime than what those same people were doing to their slaves by capturing them from their home, sticking them on cramped boats where a large portion of them would die of disease, selling them in chains on some auction block like animals, seperating families, and then forcing them to work for nothing but the minimal standard of living necessary to allow them to keep working, taking all the fruits of the slaves' labor as their own, and mercilessly beating and whipping them. You have no rights to moral indignation when you ignore your own sins against morality.
theone86
That is the most slanted, self-serving, fallacy-ridden piece on the Civil War I have ever seen (Sure it is, nice way to ignore the reference sources there).. . First of all, the continual theme is that of equivocation, you continually use broad terms like the North and the South to refer to a variety of seperate entities(Give me a break...now it just looks like you're picking things out just for the hell of it).., except when it suits your own purposes. I must ask, you didn't happen to pick up this argumentation during your studies at Beck U, did you (Did you happen to pick yours up at Liberal U?)? Anyways, this is faulty logic of the highest, or should I say lowest order. John Brown made a murderous attempt to end slavery, there were Northern writers who voiced support for him, therefore all Northerners, including the Union government were committed to a murderous plot to kill all Southerners, makes perfect sense(Who said it made perfect sense?..I stated that as a result of the support from the North the South began to fear for it's safety within the Union..). Oh, but that same all-encompassing logic doesn't count for the Southern side, no they were mostly subsistence farmers (Which is fact..i'm sorry that it doesn't agree with you..). It's okay tio generalize all Northern citizens as a murderous horde (Who was generalizing the North as a murderous horde..?), but the Southerners were all simple folk just tryin to get by.(Never did i state that as i said in the end it was wrong to enslave people..)Furthermore, as to the number of abolitionist groups in the South, why do you think that is? Do you think there may be a logical reason for that other than your specious claim of Northerners not caring about slavery (Who the hell said the North Didn't care about slavery?..i said that their intentions weren't as golden and perfect as people say.) Perhaps because slavery was more rampant in the South? Perhaps because operating in the South doesn't speak to where they originally hailed from? Naw, those explanations are too logical. (I don't even get what you're trying to state here..)
In regards to Lincoln engaging in the war for reasons other than slavery, I don't think anyone has ever skipped around that fact, it's very well-known and taught in U.S. history (not in the courses i have been in..as i stated at the end of the dissertation..). That also doesn't cfhange the fact that he was THE person who freed the slaves, he was the one that wrote the speech that gave them hope (Who said he wasn't?..). Even if this was more of a political concession, it could be argued that many of his earilier views supporting slavery and division were a political concession (No they weren't..he was a member of the Republican party..which has i said in the dissertation was notoriously abolitionist..), not to mention that people are always bound to a degree to the customs of their time. This does not excuse all his views, but these views do not eliminate the impact he had on this country (Who said it did?..). There are no paragons in life, there is no one that is perfect. That doesn't mean that we can't admire a man like Abraham Lincoln in spite of his flaws, or criticize him in spite of his contributions (Oh so now we can't criticize people?..For shame..). At any rate, your depiction of him as an ogre is completely unwarranted by either strand of logic (I never depicted him as an ogre by any stretch...). The man, as outlined in his campaign speeches, sought unity and was prepared to achieve unity through negotiation rather than force. Fort Sumter forced his hand before he had a chance to try and resolve the situation peacefully. (No, i didnt't...The South Seceded from the Union..he should have pulled his troops out if he wanted peaceful negotiation..)
As to soldiers fighting for patriotism, that's how it always is any any and every war ever fought (Oh lord, you agree..). Soldiers believe in abstract ideals and in service to their country, they are made to serve the whims of those who control the nation (Give me a break with that line..Each side fought for what the viewed was right...you cannot fault them for thus..). German soldiers fought for patriotism in World War two, as did British, French, Italian, Japanese, and American soldiers, as did all those countries in World War One, and going back through every war that was ever fought. The leaders, the politicians argue over the reasons to go to war, the soldiers go to war to fight for their country. It doesn't matter what a soldier thought, Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy weresending their soldiers to fightto preserve slavery(No, they weren't..they were fighting to keep their independence..which included slavery though it was not even close to exclusively about slavery..nor was slavery the main concern of either side..slavery contributed to the civil war in so much as it created quarrels in regards to territory and such..), even if their soldiers weren't going to war because they wanted to preserve slavery.
Basically, the whole original post is trash (Basically saying this was unecessary and unwarranted..i could state the same of your post..also, the fact that you're the only one that thinks it's so slanted and biased whereas no one else denies the facts that were supported...it's laughable really...), unabashed revisionism (Oh please...). you equivocate, you slant, you spin, and you do everything in your power to villify (Oh and you didn't just a few lines down..?) some and exonerate others based on nothing but your own personal feelings on a braod philosophy of liberty (As you did with your post..except i did mine in a respetful manner..and except i vilified no one, i feel the South is often vilified whereas the North is always seen as righteous..and that was not by any stretch the case..). What could've been done different? Maybe those arrogant imperialist settlers who came here from Europe could've not taken Africans from their homeland and sold them into slavery(For shame..you have all people should know that enslaving the populous was what conquerors of the time did..), maybe our founding fathers could've given equal rights to all men without the asteriks, maybe instead of comprimising with people who made their fortunes off of human misery(Yeah..because all of what...a quarter of the south or less relied on slavery...) they could've sent federal troops to forcefully liberate the slaves, hell maybe John Brown could've gotten the job done, because even if he murdered every slave owner in the South it would still be less of a crime than what those same people were doing to their slaves by capturing them from their home, sticking them on cramped boats where a large portion of them would die of disease, selling them in chains on some auction block like animals, seperating families, and then forcing them to work for nothing but the minimal standard of living necessary to allow them to keep working, taking all the fruits of the slaves' labor as their own, and mercilessly beating and whipping them. You have no rights to moral indignation when you ignore your own sins against morality.(Each side had it's flaws..as i have stated..you completely take it out of context...the thing to do at the time was to enslave or force those you conquered to submit to your rule...and they were nothing more then property..regardless of race..because it has happened to nearly every race at some point in history...)
theone86
The victors write the history books, and in this case, all public school textbooks. That's why when you hear people ask the reason for the civil war, you almost universally get one answer. Good post.
Wow...I think China wants a part of their wall back. =OTreflisNo, it's mine and they can't have it! :x..
Yes it was the main reason. When you read the speeches and the letters of Confederate politicians, slavery is the biggest issue to them - e.g. Vice President Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech" where he proclaimed that the Confederacy was founded on maintaining slavery, and how slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy. The biggest political issue of the day was slavery, and that was the main issue that was being fought over during the civil war. -Sun_Tzu-No it wasn't the main reason. There were many issues that led to civil war. Yes...slavery was an issue but not THE issue. Lincoln was not going to abolish slavery in the south. That was not happening.
Important issues....
Tariffs....Southern states felt they were unfair and added specifically to hurt the south. As plantations were their main source of income.....they imported much more than the industrialized North did. The economic structure used also caused the South to pay higher interest in banks than the North did. After a problem with Northern banks...the Southern banks had to bail them out. This was not something the South was happy about.
Power...the North and Mid West states were more populated and thus were getting more power than the Southern states which were sparsely populated in relation to the North.
States Rights...the Southern States believed that state laws and regulations should carry more weight than federal laws/regulations.
Slavery....an issue insomuch as new states/territories were to be free.
But it is NOT a single issue that led to succession. The South felt their needs were ignored and that states had rights over the federal government. None of these issues in and of themselves would have led to war....but adding them all together....the south got tired of it and wanted out.
[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] But you're disregarding all the suspicion and such they had towards Lincoln as well..he was a Republican..and in the South Republicans were viewed as the one's who supported the radical actions of John Brown...and they were invaders...they were troops from somewhere not part of the Confederacy..Lincoln should have known to pull the Federal troops out as it would cause suspicion and result in some sort of violent action..which in the end it did..Xx_Hopeless_xXI can understand their suspicion about Lincoln, but I guess I can't say that taking military action based on that suspicion without trying other methods first is just not wise. It was federal property and Lincoln was under no obligation to surrender property that belonged to his government, especially without receiving anything in return. Would it have prevented the war if he would have? Maybe, but whether or not Lincoln knew it would lead to violence is irrelevant, because South Carolina became violent. If federal troops had fired on South Carolina it would be a different story. Granted, Lincoln didn't help when he was inaugurated and declared that all the secessions were void, but don't you think that SC should have maybe been a little slower in bombarding Sumter? Perhaps..but they weren't and i don't fault them for it.. Well, maybe if you were one of the families that got in the way of Sherman's march to the sea, you would have hoped that the leaders calling the shots would have been a little slower to initiate violence. War is hell and should always be an absolute last resort.
[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"] I can understand their suspicion about Lincoln, but I guess I can't say that taking military action based on that suspicion without trying other methods first is just not wise. It was federal property and Lincoln was under no obligation to surrender property that belonged to his government, especially without receiving anything in return. Would it have prevented the war if he would have? Maybe, but whether or not Lincoln knew it would lead to violence is irrelevant, because South Carolina became violent. If federal troops had fired on South Carolina it would be a different story. Granted, Lincoln didn't help when he was inaugurated and declared that all the secessions were void, but don't you think that SC should have maybe been a little slower in bombarding Sumter?PlzhelpmelearnPerhaps..but they weren't and i don't fault them for it.. Well, maybe if you were one of the families that got in the way of Sherman's march to the sea, you would have hoped that the leaders calling the shots would have been a little slower to initiate violence. War is hell and should always be an absolute last resort. I would have hoped that Lincoln would have pulled his troops out then attempted to make peaceful negotiations..Everything was laready quite tense...removing his troops from the Fort at least would have made the South feel a bit more comfortable..
No it wasn't the main reason. There were many issues that led to civil war. Yes...slavery was an issue but not THE issue. Lincoln was not going to abolish slavery in the south. That was not happening.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Yes it was the main reason. When you read the speeches and the letters of Confederate politicians, slavery is the biggest issue to them - e.g. Vice President Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech" where he proclaimed that the Confederacy was founded on maintaining slavery, and how slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy. The biggest political issue of the day was slavery, and that was the main issue that was being fought over during the civil war. LJS9502_basic
Important issues....
Tariffs....Southern states felt they were unfair and added specifically to hurt the south. As plantations were their main source of income.....they imported much more than the industrialized North did. The economic structure used also caused the South to pay higher interest in banks than the North did. After a problem with Northern banks...the Southern banks had to bail them out. This was not something the South was happy about.
Power...the North and Mid West states were more populated and thus were getting more power than the Southern states which were sparsely populated in relation to the North.
States Rights...the Southern States believed that state laws and regulations should carry more weight than federal laws/regulations.
Slavery....an issue insomuch as new states/territories were to be free.
But it is NOT a single issue that led to succession. The South felt their needs were ignored and that states had rights over the federal government. None of these issues in and of themselves would have led to war....but adding them all together....the south got tired of it and wanted out.
The tariffs existed because of slavery.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No it wasn't the main reason. There were many issues that led to civil war. Yes...slavery was an issue but not THE issue. Lincoln was not going to abolish slavery in the south. That was not happening.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Yes it was the main reason. When you read the speeches and the letters of Confederate politicians, slavery is the biggest issue to them - e.g. Vice President Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech" where he proclaimed that the Confederacy was founded on maintaining slavery, and how slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy. The biggest political issue of the day was slavery, and that was the main issue that was being fought over during the civil war. psychobrew
Important issues....
Tariffs....Southern states felt they were unfair and added specifically to hurt the south. As plantations were their main source of income.....they imported much more than the industrialized North did. The economic structure used also caused the South to pay higher interest in banks than the North did. After a problem with Northern banks...the Southern banks had to bail them out. This was not something the South was happy about.
Power...the North and Mid West states were more populated and thus were getting more power than the Southern states which were sparsely populated in relation to the North.
States Rights...the Southern States believed that state laws and regulations should carry more weight than federal laws/regulations.
Slavery....an issue insomuch as new states/territories were to be free.
But it is NOT a single issue that led to succession. The South felt their needs were ignored and that states had rights over the federal government. None of these issues in and of themselves would have led to war....but adding them all together....the south got tired of it and wanted out.
The tariffs existed because of slavery. that's why they placed protective ones on the Norths goods and manufactured goods..right..?
No it wasn't the main reason. There were many issues that led to civil war. Yes...slavery was an issue but not THE issue. Lincoln was not going to abolish slavery in the south. That was not happening.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Yes it was the main reason. When you read the speeches and the letters of Confederate politicians, slavery is the biggest issue to them - e.g. Vice President Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech" where he proclaimed that the Confederacy was founded on maintaining slavery, and how slavery was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy. The biggest political issue of the day was slavery, and that was the main issue that was being fought over during the civil war. LJS9502_basic
Important issues....
Tariffs....Southern states felt they were unfair and added specifically to hurt the south. As plantations were their main source of income.....they imported much more than the industrialized North did. The economic structure used also caused the South to pay higher interest in banks than the North did. After a problem with Northern banks...the Southern banks had to bail them out. This was not something the South was happy about.
Power...the North and Mid West states were more populated and thus were getting more power than the Southern states which were sparsely populated in relation to the North.
States Rights...the Southern States believed that state laws and regulations should carry more weight than federal laws/regulations.
Slavery....an issue insomuch as new states/territories were to be free.
But it is NOT a single issue that led to succession. The South felt their needs were ignored and that states had rights over the federal government. None of these issues in and of themselves would have led to war....but adding them all together....the south got tired of it and wanted out.
Well as it turned out Lincoln did not immediately turn to abolish slavery, but fears that he would attempt to abolish slavery were a large contributing factor to the secession. I think a lot of those who claim it was a "states' vs federal rights" issue (which, of course, was also a very important contributing factor) under-represent the influence of slavery on the decision to secede...
I have to congradulate anyone who read that.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment