The Civil War was about slavery, not economics

The civil war was about slavery and racism, nothing else. Here are the proclamations leading to the war in the words of some states that supported slavery:

Texas:

"That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations..." (source).​

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.​

South Carolina:

The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation (source).​

Georgia:

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers (source).​

Florida:

Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves (source).​

Alabama:

And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as a permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States (source).​

So, it's not just about the confederacy and secession or economics, it's about a belief that black people are inferior humans, naturally criminal, and are only good for working for white people.

It's very easy to rewrite and romanticize history, but it's not so easy to change the ind of a conservative who believes that passive racism is tolerable. Objects that represent the ideas above are racist, and they deserve no place of respect in any society.

Only when these symbols of oppression are removed can we move on and have equal opportunity for all Americans.

 

Slavery was economics to the South

 

/THREAD

 

Truth hurts?

 

It was about many things slavery being merely one of them. Mostly it was about states rights. It was the north that started the war in reality. The south had the right to leave.
You can not separate slavery from economics.

 

How is this a current event?

 

Dailykos links aren't worth clicking on. There are other sources for the Declarations of Secession, Cornerstone Speech, etc.

 

Because everyone is talking about it.

Then why didn't they mention economics in their reasoning? It would have been a better argument then "we don't want to give black people rights."

 

Still doesn't make it a current event.

 

Not "Current Events".

That's your OPINION.

Move the thread to the appropriate sub-forum.

 

Why would Deckel's point hurt me? Slavery was an integral part of the Southern economy.

But I see what you're clumsily trying to get at, which is that the CW was about slavery, and for once you and I are in agreement. However, there were other factors, such as the agitation and bloodlust of men like Edmund Ruffin and John Brown, who made war a foregone conclusion.

 

My people suffered a lot during the Civil War too.

But yeah slavery is what it's best known for. However anyone that says it was also about economics is not wrong.

 

What's the difference between slavery and economics?

Slaves were used as capital. When slavery vanishes, so does the capital.

Imagine if at some point in American history the Federal government decides to recognize the autonomy of, and abolish the ownership and operation of robots. What would happen to American industry's ability to compete with the industries of say, China or India? (Which some would say are maintained on the antiquated model of near slave human labor)

 

....and slavery was about economics....booyah! Destroyed the thread premise with one sentence.

 

If the North had supported slavery, there would have been no war.

That is how we know it was about slavery.

According to the Supreme Court, they did not.

You can have the personal opinion that they were wrong of course. But that is actual US law. You cannot unilaterally secede from the US.

 

One has to do with the basic rights of human beings. The other does not.

Then I guess it was a really bad idea to base their economy on the ownership of human beings.

If we were to recognize the basic human rights of robots in the same way, then too bad. If you're going to base your economy on robots, it's probably a good idea to consider the risks that they might get rights some day.

 

Kinda like basing it on illegal immigrant labor.

How can a nonhuman have human rights?

 

Someone is in serious need of a history lesson. Maybe you can show me in the constitution where it says the only way a state can leave is to fight its way out. In fact the DOI says that they should leave

Till death do us part is not in the constitution

 

It is conceivable that any sapient intelligence could receive rights in the future. They are only called "human rights" because only humans have had them so far.

And yeah, illegal labor would be the same thing. It's a risk you choose to take. If it vanishes you are SoL.

 

It doesn't have to be explicit. Thats the point of the Supreme Court. Their function is interpretation.

Unless they overturn their own rulings (difficult, but not impossible), or unless the Constitution is amended, unilateral secession will remain illegal.

 

At the time of the civil war Lincoln ordered the arrest of Chief Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney. Again they also do not have the power of judicial review according to the constitution.Show me where in the constitution it says no state shall ever leave.

 

The South was much less industrialized than the North. King Cotton was structured around slavery.

 

Thanks for explaining. Interesting point.

 

Your question is a non-sequitur. According to the Supreme Court, it is implicit in the Constitution, and therefore law.

If you believe I am wrong you are welcome to secede.

 

Completely irrelevant. Liberty > Economics. Always.

Doubly irrelevant since the south had full representation within the Union.