azzaman333
meh
Great dislike towards each other.
What is the main cause for the American Civil War?
- Thread starter Bill3000
- Start date
Great dislike towards each other.
carmen510
Deity
Ironically, your point is moot considering the following:
1. The document clearly states 3 whites count as 5 slaves FOR CONSTITUENT REPRESENTATION ONLY. (AKA: The document doesn't state that morally, slaves count only as 3/5 of a person, they are COUNTED that way to determine the amount of representatives a state could have.
2. If slaves counted as a whole person, Southern states would have much more power in Congress, which the 3/5 section was meant to counteract. Northerners wanted slaves to count as NO person, while Southerners wanted slaves to count as a WHOLE person, all part of a North-South power struggle.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
It doesn't say anything about whites. The only people excluded for racial reasons were native americans, and even then only those not taxed. Free blacks would count the same as free whites. I'm not sure if there were white slaves in the US at that point, but if there were then they would count the same as black slaves.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the northern states had tried to make taxes based on the total state populations including slaves so as to make the south pay more than its fair share of the country's tax burden, ans the southern states tried to exclude them so the north would pay more of the taxes. Congress eventually reached a compromise that was a little closer to the northern position than the southern one. When debating the Constitution the southern representatives wanted to get back at the northern ones by making them stick to the agreement that had worked against them for tax purposes for representation too once it was clear that some compromise was needed.
It would have made more sense to only count registered voters, except that people didn't really register for voting back then. Also, the federal government could only demand taxes from states, not collect them from individuals (well, ok, they could still impose excise taxes on individuals, but the income tax was unconstitutional).
Under the Articles of Confederation, the northern states had tried to make taxes based on the total state populations including slaves so as to make the south pay more than its fair share of the country's tax burden, ans the southern states tried to exclude them so the north would pay more of the taxes. Congress eventually reached a compromise that was a little closer to the northern position than the southern one. When debating the Constitution the southern representatives wanted to get back at the northern ones by making them stick to the agreement that had worked against them for tax purposes for representation too once it was clear that some compromise was needed.
It would have made more sense to only count registered voters, except that people didn't really register for voting back then. Also, the federal government could only demand taxes from states, not collect them from individuals (well, ok, they could still impose excise taxes on individuals, but the income tax was unconstitutional).
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
That's pretty much it. Slavery was a reason not the reason.
I'm at least happy to see that people don't still believe that the North fought to free the slaves like they were on some noble crusade. That would be like saying men like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson were fighting to keep their slaves.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Candle, you are stating that the legislature represented the will of the people because blacks did not have equal rights, free man or slave. In effect you are saying that southern blacks were not people until whites granted them that status.
The will of the people cannot be exercised when, forget Georgia at 44%, in South Carolina, over 60% of the population was enslaved, let alone disenfranchised.
And Patroklos, please make the effort to have names attached to your quotes. It looks like you're discussing only the first person you quote, and when that discussion has nothing to do with what I'm interested in discussing, I don't realize that you've responded to me further down until someone else quoted you and furthered the discussion.
Nevertheless I agree that our democracy was inherently flawed before woman's suffrage. However we can see that on most issues women do not deviate from men anywhere near the way racial differences cause voter deviation. Choxorn made a very similar point.
Furthermore, while yes the federal government denied slaves freedom as well, the federal government, through twists and turns, was the only remote hope for enslaved people. I stated this before and you pretended my argument was that the federal government actually represented the slaves, which is ridiculous. I think there's a popular word for that around here... Anyway, northern abolitionists held no possible political power in the South, but did in the North. This meant a increasingly powerful lobbying group could use the federal government to the advantage of slaves and proponents of justice and equality. But with secession, those groups had no ability to effect change from within. So my original point stands.
Imperialmajesty
Emperor
I think everyone can agree that the North wasn't fighting for the enlightened reason of liberating the slaves. Mr. Lincoln himself proves it.
" I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
Anyway... in the constitution, it seems that technically any state can leave the union under the 10th Amendment
However, if we accept the validity of the Supreme Court to declare the constitutionality of something as per Article III Section 2 Clause 2, then according to Texas v. White, it is unconstitutional.
But, since Texas v. White wasn't decided upon until 1869, the secession of the Southern States was contemporaneously constitutional.
So, in summation, it was a legal act, and the Federal Government committed the first hostile act of the Civil War, namely, not evacuating from the Southern States.
Except they where slaves, had no say nor rights granted under law. They where not considered to anything more than property at the time in the south, and the north viewed them the same way. You refuse to look at the issue in the proper context and look at it from a modern viewpoint, if you want to discuss the issue look at it in context, where slaves where property not people and where entitled to nothing, you could leaglly starve and rape your slaves because they where not considered a person at the time. Same goes with Womens Suffrage, women had no rights granted to them excpet what there husbands gave them, only Men had the rights given to them. Women could be arrested for speaking there minds in the context of the 1860's do not forget this either. What the Civil War and the citizenry consisted of was land owning white males, thats it.
Texas Vs White is debatable for one reason. The Supreme court ruled Texas never stoped being a state. While 2 years later Texas was readmited as a state by the Legislative branch. So who is correct, if Texas was always a state no readmitance would have been required, because Texas would have had congressmen in Washington at wars end, yet the rights of a state where not returned till 2 years later. So White vs Texas is debatable on its ruling simply because of the events of the time.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Yes, that is all very true, but... this isn't the debate. I'm not refuting a black man's then-legal status nor am I ignorant of the ass backward context of prewar South.
Let's rewind a little bit so we can stay on topic:
Now I admit I am focusing on the underlined part rather than focusing on the sentence as a whole, but let's break it down.
Ulyaoth states that states can do whatever so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Then I make a rhetorical point designed to invalidate his claim that secession does not infringe on the rights of "others". You come in and make a 19th century legal argument, which to your credit was the then-majority's modus operandi, thereby a rational argument to make. Not to your credit though, is that you defending the right of South to secede, and are latching on to premises like "doesn't infringe on the rights of others". Now this is false, because regardless of whether or not a black slave has legal rights, as a human being, he had human rights, meaning that those rights can be infringed upon. If you cry historical context again I will remind you that abolitionists existed then (and only then) and drew upon an older American mantra "all men are created equal", so we know there is plenty of historical context for human rights. Secession infringed upon the civil rights of slaves not because it changed their status, but because it changed their avenues for in-system change. In other words, once the South separated from the Union, the only option for the enslaved man to better himself, or have others better his fortunes in his censured stead, was out-of-system change such as revolution, or liberation-by-outside force (i.e. invading Union army).
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Secession didn't really infringe on the rights of slaves, as they would still have been slaves had secession not happened. In fact, it is almost certain they would have remained slaves much longer. Even if the south had won though, it could be argued that the war still actually benefit the slaves as (at least really late in the war) they could win their freedom by serving in the Confederate Army (if I recall correctly this required their masters' permission to join, but the patriotic wartime spirit and societal pressure would make it hard for the masters to refuse slaves who express a desire to fight for the south, especially since they would be financially compensated for their loss.) The hardships of war of course infringed on the rights of most of US populous.
Also, Civil Rights are by definition the Rights of Citizens, which non-citizens like slaves would have never had and so which could not have been infringed upon. (In no way does not mean that the slaves were not having their basic human rights violated though. American slavery was often far worse than ancient forms. Roman slaves at least had the right to private property, which included the right to own their own slaves. Social mobility among slaves was then quite high, with many former slaves becoming quite wealthy. That happened occasionally in the south (black slaveholders were not unheard of), but not nearly as often. The many illegitimate children that slave owners had with their slaves would also have been citizens instead of slaves under Roman law, at least after that reform whose name I forget.)
Also, Civil Rights are by definition the Rights of Citizens, which non-citizens like slaves would have never had and so which could not have been infringed upon. (In no way does not mean that the slaves were not having their basic human rights violated though. American slavery was often far worse than ancient forms. Roman slaves at least had the right to private property, which included the right to own their own slaves. Social mobility among slaves was then quite high, with many former slaves becoming quite wealthy. That happened occasionally in the south (black slaveholders were not unheard of), but not nearly as often. The many illegitimate children that slave owners had with their slaves would also have been citizens instead of slaves under Roman law, at least after that reform whose name I forget.)
actully the enslaved had no honest hope to begin with. It was illegal to be a run away slave even in the north. If you where a runaway slave you where sent back to the plantation for flogging and possibly killed. The underground Railroad did exist to prevent this but many prior slaves ended up back in the south, as they where not treated as human beings at the time. Slaves where defined by the Federal Government as property, that was there context, the abolitionists did not make the laws at the outbreak of the Civil War, remember this, at the outbreak Slaves where still listed as property not men by the federal government. No matter what there standing today, back then they had no claim to basic human rights under federal law as they where defined as property and where considered to be only part human. This is how the federal government defined a slave, so your arguement that the states at this time did indeed infringe on there rights is once again based on 21st century laws and understanding, not on the 1860's where the slaves where not given the status of men, because to do so would mean they where equal to the white population at the time. So they where listed as property and not has humans, so under federal law they had no human rights.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Candle, I appreciate the tone of our discussion and your posts.
If we remember that the South seceded in large part because they felt the existence of slavery was threatened by the growing abolitionist movement, we can then understand that even though federal law at the time was on the side of the South, there was a very reasonable chance, and a widespread belief, that in future years federal law would change, making it first easier for slaves to escape to places where there might be legal protections, and then as westward expansion continued, perhaps even an anti-slavery amendment to the constitution. Ergo, the federal government was the hope for slaves and their abolitionist advocates, and Southern secession thereby infringed upon the rights of enslaved persons.
If we remember that the South seceded in large part because they felt the existence of slavery was threatened by the growing abolitionist movement, we can then understand that even though federal law at the time was on the side of the South, there was a very reasonable chance, and a widespread belief, that in future years federal law would change, making it first easier for slaves to escape to places where there might be legal protections, and then as westward expansion continued, perhaps even an anti-slavery amendment to the constitution. Ergo, the federal government was the hope for slaves and their abolitionist advocates, and Southern secession thereby infringed upon the rights of enslaved persons.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I'm afraid the Poland joke is a little after my time. I'm not up on CivFanatics culture like I used to be. MobBoss and Red Stranger are still the new guys to me 
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
I'm afraid the Poland joke is a little after my time. I'm not up on CivFanatics culture like I used to be. MobBoss and Red Stranger are still the new guys to me
Some Russian governmental dude recently said that Poland was at fault for WWII
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Sorry to threadjack further, but that's the thread that started the whole Poland thing? I read the first page or something, then forgot about it.
but that is a future situation not the present one, no rights where infringed agasint a slave in the action. Also don't look at this as a high and mighty north, remember freedmen before the Civil War had no rights even in the north and where kept segragated from white people and traditionally lived more akin to an indutured servant. The only reason the north was agasint it was because the south had more power in congress because of it
Ulyaoth
Emperor
The actual act of seceding did not infringe on anyone's rights. The basis behind the secession, it could be argued, but not the actual act of seceding.
