I’m not sure how you came up with that interpretation.
Have you read the thread?
I agree. Slavery was the flashpoint, the motive that explains the South’s secession. Do you agree that Lincoln would never have recognized the legitimacy of the Confederacy and done everything in his power to end their rebellion, regardless of their reason for rebelling?
Good thing I never said that. But if they didn’t have the right to secede, was there some fundamental principle at play that barred them from seceding?
Did the colonists have the “right” to declare independence from Great Britain?
No, they wouldn’t have raised an army if they didn’t expect resistance. They did offer to buy off federal holdings in the south, including Fort Sumter, but Lincoln rejected the offer. They attacked Fort Sumter and essentially dared Lincoln to stop them. Which he did. I think it’s possible the Confederacy had dared to hope for a limited war followed by Lincoln conceding, but they obviously bit off more than they could chew.
The North may not have been willing to go to over slavery but the South was and when they seceded, the north was willing to go to war over the secession. Isn’t that accurate?
And why did they want self government? What issue did they differ on? Slavery.
Slavery was why the Confederacy was created. Slavery by the time the Civil War came around had become an all-consuming issue for the South; every other aspect of their society was subordinated to slavery. Religion, politics, economy; everything. It was all about slavery, all other needs were subordinated to excusing and supporting slavery. Their entire society was just a machine for the support of slavery. I recall reading a quote from a congressman of the time comparing it to the Biblical plague of frogs; everywhere he turned, everywhere he looked there was slavery.
Because you keep on bringing up why the North went to war. They wouldn’t have gone to war if the South hadn’t seceded, and the South seceded due to slavery. It’s like saying GW I started because of respect for national boundaries, not because Saddam attacked Kuwait.
I always read the thread. The South went to war because of slavery. The North went to war because of the South. I don’t know if you would get a majority of northerners who would go to war to abolish slavery in 1861. I doubt it. I’m sure you wouldn’t get a majority who would go to war for equal rights for black people.
Hard to say. Not if they unilaterally seceded without negotiation. Perhaps if they had some kind of good reason for doing so. But the point is moot, since I challenge you or anyone to come up with a reasons besides slavery which would have motivated secession.
In response to the question
you said
so I might be forgiven for thinking believe this is a cause.
You can read the Declaration of Independence for that. But the difference is that the colonists, or their ancestors, never entered into a voluntary association with Great Britain, unlike the Southerners, and the colonists did not have representation in the government which ruled them, again unlike the Southerners.
It has already been noted, several times, that their love of self government did not extend to the northern states being able to reject the Fugitive Slave Act, so I don’t think you have much of a case here.
If they wanted out of the Constitution, they were free to try to get it amended to allow secession explicitly or they were free to sue for secession using existing legal channels.
Voluntary means entering into a contract, not being able to quit it without penalty any time I damn well please.
The Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law that many northerners defiantly ignored. That’s not self-government, that’s protest. Like burning your draft card.
Moreover, the Southerners seceded when they nnot out of some love of abstract liberty, but because they were no longer able to dominate the federal government. When their various abuses finally caught up with them in the west, they ran like scared little girls (the elites, anyway).
For what it’s worth, in my AP US History class we were taught that the AP graders wanted us to show how the Civil War was NOT about slavery. It was as if slavery wasn’t even THE central issue. Really, IIRC, the Civil War was was about: 1) blah blah blah slavery, 2) blah blah slavery blah, and especially 3) blah blah blah blah slavery blah blah. I couldn’t quite grasp the concept of it not being about slavery when all of the real reasons were direct results of slavery, so I guess that’s why I barely squeaked by with a passing grade on the AP test.
That, however, is not “states rights” but a separate discussion regarding the legitimacy of dissolution.
At the risk of my comment turning into a semantic debate, however, I will stipulate that one can perceive secession as a state right.
However, the “states rights” argument already fails in history, without even considering our current view of the nation.
The Southern states were unanimous in their condemnation of the Hartford Convention and threatened to go to war to force New England to remain in the Union when several Northern states considered withdrawing due to the harm that the War of 1812, (“Mr. Madison’s War”), was inflicting on that portion of the country.
The Southern states all issued significant condemnations of every action by any Northern state to bypass or work around the Fugitive Slave acts of 1793 and 1850. If the South’s opinion was that the North had no right to work around a Federal Law, then it is rank hypocrisy for the South to claim that they have some separate rights outside the Fedral government over which they can start a war.
A whoosh is the sound something makes as it goes over your head. The term is typically used when somebody means something ironically or humourously or otherwise not seriously and you respond as if it had been meant seriously - in which case the intended meaning of the post has gone over your head.
Guys, am I allowed to create apps to respond on these boards. See I can make one that responds to MOIDALIZE with the string ‘And that was directly based on slavery.’
Rats, now I have to ask the moderator another question.
But the difference is that the colonists, or their ancestors, never entered into a voluntary association with Great Britain, unlike the Southerners, and the colonists did not have representation in the government which ruled them, again unlike the Southerners.