Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectI Disagree
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=28663&mesg_id=28731
28731, I Disagree
Posted by RexLongfellow, Sun Mar-13-05 12:21 AM
>Legal nor moral.
>Despite what the revisionists say, the Civil War was about
>slavery, as the sectional tension of the time was always
>centered around. 3/5ths Compromise, Bloody Kansas, Compromise
>of 1850, Missouri Compromise, the birth of the Republican
>Party, Fugitive Slave Act, etc...all of that was centered on
>the fact that not only did the South want to make sure that
>slavery existed everywhere in the Union as possible, and
>through a pro-slavery consensus in new territories continued
>their influence on American politics.
This is where I disagree. I really don't think the
South cared if the North wanted slaves. They didn't
want the North to tell them that they CAN'T have any
slaves. It was more for protection of what they deemed
a crucial part of their way of life, rather than
spreading it, as well as protection from a growing population in the North, which would put them at a disadvantage in the House (which I agree, the influence in American politics was a big issue). Slavery was already protected in the Constitution by that time, so by that, it's not like the Union was against slavery (up until 1863).

Then again, I doubt if the North cared if the South
had slaves, because if they did, there would be a lot
more anti-slave legislation, and that would be
enforced even more in the South, and throughout the country.

>Secession in and of itself was legal, as a number of Framers
>stated at the time. But secession through slavery wasn't, as
>it was akin to kidnapping. Although slaves weren't considered
>full citizens, they were still residents of the U.S., which
>meant they had a right to decide whether or not they wanted to
>stay with the Union. Of course, Southerners were not going to
>give them that option.
The problem with this was that they weren't considered
"residents" of the US. The FREE men were considered
3/5th's of a man. The 3/5th's of a man thing were for voting purposes, and slaves couldn't vote. The slaves were considered
"property". So the kidnapping theory wouldn't apply,
because it was seen as you can't kidnap anything you
own. The biggest point of slavery was their rights
were for the most part at the discretion of their
masters. As morally wrong as that is, that was what
was legal. If slaves had any sorts of rights, most of
the abuses and whippings and murders for
insubordination would get masters at the very least
arrested (although the times dictated very little, if
anything would happen to them).