# Was the America Civil War fought over slavery? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2016, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766 "2016-01-21T10:03:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/101 "2016-01-22T22:08:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Some government actions are legitimate. The actions of the Confederacy were not. > > The quote does not demonstrate this. You are incorrect. > > Comparing conscription in war to slavery is not reasonable. > > Bullshit. There were no (or no substantial or significant) such “pleas”, especially for “just compensation” (as if any compensation for the brutalizations of slavery could be “just”). > > No, having military forces on property that federal troops and workers had occupied for decades continuously is not a “clear sign of hostility”. > > No idea what you’re talking about here. Considering the irrationality of your other arguments, I doubt it’s anything significant, but if you have any cites that Lincoln ordered torture, rape, or pillage, I’m open to see them. > > Lincoln was definitely a white supremacist, but compared to others of the time he was less so than many (and far less so than most Southern whites). So far I’ve seen no reason to believe he was a despot. > > I will. Passing laws to free slaves, and guarantee rights, is a good thing. The US government has done some good things to protect people’s rights. It has done bad things too. > > No I don’t. Let’s have a cite that I’m a “Lincoln idolater”, or that I “hailed it as a strategic move to provoke an attack”. > > Do you normally say incorrect things about other posters, or is this a new thing for you? > > Assholes demanded surrender, came in force, and bombarded until they surrendered, unlawfully attacking and taking by force property that US soldiers and workers had been occupying continuously for decades. The Union reasonably saw this as prelude to further action, and prepared for war, and to retake this property that was unlawfully taken by force. > > More silliness. Comparing the brutality of slavery to any contemporary institutions is not reasonable. Slavery really was different, and really was a lot worse than anything else going on at the time. > > Your position is ludicrous and inconsistent with reality. Considering your position as a true believer in military service, and current employment as a war profiteer, I doubt I will be able to persuade you that war is not always the answer. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/102 "2016-01-22T22:13:48Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Considering your position as a true believer in military service, and current employment as a war profiteer, I doubt I will be able to persuade you that war is not always the answer. I’m no longer a profiteer; now I work for the Navy directly. And while war is almost never the answer, the Civil War falls into that gap. As long as you minimize the brutality of slavery by conflating it with incomparable things, you’re not going to convince me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/103 "2016-01-22T22:14:45Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Of course, the confederacy was a government, therefore immoral. . . . OK, now you’re stepping way beyond even the Libertarian pale. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/104 "2016-01-22T22:18:04Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > It’s actually socialism and slavery at the same time. I’m familiar with the conscription = slavery thing, but . . . military service, as such, is a form of socialism now? :rolleyes: Not **everything** that involves government spending money is socialism, **Will.** ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/105 "2016-01-22T22:24:17Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > As the quote from the murderous butcher Abe Lincoln demonstrates, Lincoln was very concerned about collecting tariffs to enrich his crony friends and not so interested in the people under the thumb of the brutal rapists. Heh. Is this for real? I just don’t understand libertarian types who vilify Lincoln. Nobody in US history did more to end slavery–which you’d think would be the number one libertarian sin–and yet they focus on minor stuff and blow it out of proportion. I don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/106 "2016-01-22T23:16:40Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Heh. Is this for real? I just don’t understand libertarian types who vilify Lincoln. Nobody in US history did more to end slavery–which you’d think would be the number one libertarian sin–and yet they focus on minor stuff and blow it out of proportion. I don’t get it. I think it’s because they (or, at least, **Will Farnaby** in particular) place much more value on having complete 100% control over money and property then about little things like black people having control over their own bodies. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/107 "2016-01-22T23:45:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [QUOTE=Chihuahua] > So you equate conscription with slavery? Wow… That’s a standard Libertarian talking-point, I first heard it in a campus lecture in 1986 or thereabouts. [/QUOTE] I find it very difficult to believe it’s that young, because the thought certainly occurred to me when I was conscripted, well over a decade before that. It wasn’t as bad as the slavery of the antebellum South, but I don’t know what else you could call it. I had to do what I was told, even if it was extremely dangerous or morally repugnant to me, and they could kill me if I refused. I had to eat what and when I was told to, sleep only where and when allowed. I had to wear a uniform that made it clear to everyone within visual range that I was of a lower class than those in authority, and I could be punished if, in the opinion of someone in authority, I was not sufficiently obsequious to him. Yes, I was paid ($139 a month to start, IIRC), but so were many Roman slaves. That said, I want to be clear that I vehemently disagree with everything else our resident libertarian has alleged. And to point out, in case it’s not common knowledge, that SC seceded over two months before Lincoln took office, so it was not a reaction to his inaugural address, or anything to do with taxes, or disputed land, or any of his other policies. Their own documents make it clear that it was all about slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/108 "2016-01-22T23:53:54Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Heh. Is this for real? I just don’t understand libertarian types who vilify Lincoln. Nobody in US history did more to end slavery–which you’d think would be the number one libertarian sin–and yet they focus on minor stuff and blow it out of proportion. I don’t get it. Some Libertarians are outright Neo-Confederates. They demand that the old self-serving lie called the Lost Cause of the South is valid historiography. Their racism is about as blatant as possible even when they refrain from voicing it outright. The rest are small-government fundamentalists: The outcome was good, but the methods used were indefensible, so it was overall a bad thing. In this case, the fact Lincoln proved that an active Federal government could override both state and local control to achieve something is blasphemous. It disproves major elements of their philosophy, so it must be denounced and derided and cast in a false light to the greatest extent possible. It is, quite simply, **politically incorrect** , and therefore is greatly offensive to them. The fact the Antebellum South was an outright aristocracy morally opposed to not only Black liberation but also the political agency of poor Whites doesn’t register: It was a state-level aristocracy, at least in their minds, and local control is morally better than Federal, even if it results in the destruction of basic liberties. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/109 "2016-01-23T00:11:28Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Heh. Is this for real? I just don’t understand libertarian types who vilify Lincoln. Nobody in US history did more to end slavery–which you’d think would be the number one libertarian sin–and yet they focus on minor stuff and blow it out of proportion. I don’t get it. A certain set of libertarians idolizes the 19th century because the US Federal government was weaker, and tends to ignore or downplay anything that runs contrary to that. Enslaving, torturing, raping, and killing blacks and Indians for profit just sort off gets treated as a minor thing swept under the rug instead of a series of atrocities. They see lincoln as a bad guy because he strengthened the Federal government, and even see the South as basically libertarians in spite of hugely non-liberty-based slavery. There are also outright white supremecists tied in with the movement (Ron Paul, if not one himself, works closely with them and supported them in his newsletter). There’s a good reason why people who identify as ‘libertarian’ are 95% white. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/110 "2016-01-23T00:34:07Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Considering your position as a true believer in military service, and current employment as a war profiteer, I doubt I will be able to persuade you that war is not always the answer. That’ll earn you a warning, Will. No name calling in Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/111 "2016-01-23T01:06:37Z")
**FURTHER** , the whole hijack about libertarian views has now ended in this thread. Take that topic to a new thread. [\*\* /Moderating\*\*] ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/112 "2016-01-23T01:08:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m no longer a profiteer; now I work for the Navy directly. And while war is almost never the answer, the Civil War falls into that gap. > > As long as you minimize the brutality of slavery by conflating it with incomparable things, you’re not going to convince me. Conscription is definitely slavery, and more likely to result in a premature death. Both sides did it, because governments are immoral, but slavery it is. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’m familiar with the conscription = slavery thing, but . . . military service, as such, is a form of socialism now? :rolleyes: > > Not **everything** that involves government spending money is socialism, **Will.** Self-ownership is the fundamental principle of a free society. When a government engages in conscription it is asserting a right of ownership over your body. Conscription is governmental ownership of the means of production in this way. > [@Deeg](#): > > Heh. Is this for real? I just don’t understand libertarian types who vilify Lincoln. Nobody in US history did more to end slavery–which you’d think would be the number one libertarian sin–and yet they focus on minor stuff and blow it out of proportion. I don’t get it. Murder is the number one “sin”. In my opinionslavery would not have existed much longer if the South was permitted to secede. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think it’s because they (or, at least, **Will Farnaby** in particular) place much more value on having complete 100% control over money and property then about little things like black people having control over their own bodies. Self ownership is paramount regardless of arbitrary distinctions between humans. Governments infringe on self ownership, especially armed forces. They engage in the killing of innocents. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > I find it very difficult to believe it’s that young, because the thought certainly occurred to me when I was conscripted, well over a decade before that. > > It wasn’t as bad as the slavery of the antebellum South, but I don’t know what else you could call it. I had to do what I was told, even if it was extremely dangerous or morally repugnant to me, and they could kill me if I refused. I had to eat what and when I was told to, sleep only where and when allowed. I had to wear a uniform that made it clear to everyone within visual range that I was of a lower class than those in authority, and I could be punished if, in the opinion of someone in authority, I was not sufficiently obsequious to him. > > Yes, I was paid ($139 a month to start, IIRC), but so were many Roman slaves. > > That said, I want to be clear that I vehemently disagree with everything else our resident libertarian has alleged. And to point out, in case it’s not common knowledge, that SC seceded over two months before Lincoln took office, so it was not a reaction to his inaugural address, or anything to do with taxes, or disputed land, or any of his other policies. Their own documents make it clear that it was all about slavery. Indeed, I’m glad you survived your enslavement. That said, I never said SC seceded because of the address. I simply said Lincoln warned them he would kill only to save the magical Union and collect tariffs. I quoted him saying this. SC seceded chiefly to preserve slavery. Didn’t say anything contrary to that in this thread. > [@Derleth](#): > > Some Libertarians are outright Neo-Confederates. They demand that the old self-serving lie called the Lost Cause of the South is valid historiography. Their racism is about as blatant as possible even when they refrain from voicing it outright. > > The rest are small-government fundamentalists: The outcome was good, but the methods used were indefensible, so it was overall a bad thing. In this case, the fact Lincoln proved that an active Federal government could override both state and local control to achieve something is blasphemous. It disproves major elements of their philosophy, so it must be denounced and derided and cast in a false light to the greatest extent possible. It is, quite simply, **politically incorrect** , and therefore is greatly offensive to them. The fact the Antebellum South was an outright aristocracy morally opposed to not only Black liberation but also the political agency of poor Whites doesn’t register: It was a state-level aristocracy, at least in their minds, and local control is morally better than Federal, even if it results in the destruction of basic liberties. State level aristocracies are constrained by movement of peoples, and are forced to liberalize over time, organically, without bloodshed, and without blowback that lasts another century or more. Federal abolition by invasion was coupled with massive loss of life, crony, wealth destroying economics, and severe blowback that lasted over a century. > [@Pantastic](#): > > A certain set of libertarians idolizes the 19th century because the US Federal government was weaker, and tends to ignore or downplay anything that runs contrary to that. Enslaving, torturing, raping, and killing blacks and Indians for profit just sort off gets treated as a minor thing swept under the rug instead of a series of atrocities. They see lincoln as a bad guy because he strengthened the Federal government, and even see the South as basically libertarians in spite of hugely non-liberty-based slavery. There are also outright white supremecists tied in with the movement (Ron Paul, if not one himself, works closely with them and supported them in his newsletter). > > There’s a good reason why people who identify as ‘libertarian’ are 95% white. Most libertarians are either left-libertarians or believe in reparations for slavery (on an individual basis) as I do, so I don’t know what you’re babbling about. See Rothbard, Block, etc. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/113 "2016-01-23T01:32:03Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Most libertarians are either left-libertarians or believe in reparations for slavery (on an individual basis) as I do, so I don’t know what you’re babbling about. See Rothbard, Block, etc. Why do slavers deserve any money for their brutality? And what happens when, inevitably, the slavers refuse to cooperate and shoot at anyone who tries to “take” their slaves? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/114 "2016-01-23T01:58:05Z")
I think that **Will** is saying that slaves or their descendants are entitled to reparations, not the slave-owners. See this [discussion page](https://aaeblog.com/2009/07/24/walter-williams-versus-murray-rothbard-or-forty-acres-of-bad-arguments/), which I gather is expressing the Rothbard view **Will** refers to. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/115 "2016-01-23T02:17:33Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > State level aristocracies are constrained by movement of peoples, and are forced to liberalize over time, organically, without bloodshed, and without blowback that lasts another century or more. They’d had time to liberalize. They not only failed to, they refused to. They viewed slavery as a positive good, both for slaves and slave owners, and saw it as the cornerstone of their whole way of life. Further, [sharecroppers were not always economically free to leave](http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/228/farmers-without-land-the-plight-of-white-tenant-farmers-and-sharecroppers): > [@](#): > > Consider the sharecropping arrangement that Richard Bridges of Marshall County worked out with his landlord, T. L. Treadwell, in the 1850s. Treadwell provided Bridges with land, livestock, and tools; the landlord also advanced Bridges some food. Bridges grew corn and cotton, and at the end of the year, he had to give Treadwell one-sixth of the corn he grew and five-sixths of the cotton raised. From his share of the crop, Bridges also had to pay Treadwell for the use of the livestock and tools and for the food advanced. Obviously, Bridges worked the entire year primarily for the food he needed to live. He had no opportunity to make any money from this arrangement and accumulate the capital that would allow him to purchase his own farm. It’s a half-shade off the company store system, a form of debt peonage where people are forced to work as slaves in all but name. That, too, was an aspect of the Old Southern Aristocracy, and not one they were going to give up, either. The South had its chance. It wasn’t even attempting reforms and was, in fact, doubling-down on laws and rhetoric meant to preserve the old ways of life, right up until it was finally so beaten down by war and so close to collapse it considered allowing slaves to fight in the Confederate Army. (Not a very popular proposition in the Confederate Congress, BTW.) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/116 "2016-01-23T03:34:15Z")
The CSA really was doomed to failure. The world was switching to an industrialized economy and they were refusing to go along with it. A big factor which allowed the southern states to function as well as they did was that they were tied to the growing northern economy - independence, even if it had been accomplished peacefully, would have cut the south off from northern support. The central pillar of the southern economy was the sale of cotton. But Britain and France had decided to make themselves independent of American cotton and started cotton growing regions in Egypt, India, and Central Asia. So even if the war had ended with a southern victory, the CSA would not have recovered its foreign market. Trade would have also suffered. Midwestern grain was shipped down the Mississippi and out through New Orleans before the war. But if the CSA had tried to extract too much money from the shipping, it would have been rerouted through the Great Lakes and then the St Lawrence or the Erie Canal and the Hudson. So even if the CSA had won or avoided the war, it appears they were doomed to become a broken country. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/117 "2016-01-23T03:54:03Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I think that **Will** is saying that slaves or their descendants are entitled to reparations, not the slave-owners. > > See this [discussion page](https://aaeblog.com/2009/07/24/walter-williams-versus-murray-rothbard-or-forty-acres-of-bad-arguments/), which I gather is expressing the Rothbard view **Will** refers to. If so, I stand corrected. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/118 "2016-01-24T02:49:42Z")
> **[Reparations, Once Again](https://www.academia.edu/1425345/Reparations_Once_Again)** > > Reparations whether to blacks for slavery, or to Indians for land theft, or to settle any number of other conflicts, has an interesting political background. Analysts on the left, who are usually no friend of private property rights, nevertheless The libertarian view on reparations can be found here. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/119 "2016-01-24T11:38:17Z")
> [@davidw](#): > > Not really. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a direct assault on States Rights, yet it was overwhelmingly supported by the southern states. To be fair, the return of runaway slaves was guaranteed by the Constitution at the time. Even the most ardent states rights supporter would agree that the things specifically mentioned in the Constitution to be national in character are an exception to states rights. Is it hypocritical for someone to claim to support states rights but not object to having an army or allowing Congress to print money? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/120 "2016-01-24T15:48:48Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > To be fair, the return of runaway slaves was guaranteed by the Constitution at the time. Even the most ardent states rights supporter would agree that the things specifically mentioned in the Constitution to be national in character are an exception to states rights. > > Is it hypocritical for someone to claim to support states rights but not object to having an army or allowing Congress to print money? The problem with the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was that its powers were so far reaching it was guaranteed to be abused. Most northerners would concede that the Constitution said a runaway slave had to be sent back to their owner. But they felt, correctly, that the law should be applied only to runaway slaves. So they enacted laws that said that a person who was accused of being a runaway slave had to be brought before a judge or a jury who would determine if the accusation was true. The 1850 law attempted to change this. It said that all a person had to do was accuse somebody of being a runaway slave in order to be entitled to take them. No local authority was allowed to dispute the accusation and anyone who interfered would be heavily fined. The accused person would then be transferred to a southern state where there would be a brief hearing to confirm the accusation. On top of the social bias in favor of these accusations, the law also said that the person conducted the hearing would be paid more money if he found in favor of the accuser. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766.md?page=7)