[phpfoxmods]

There are a lot of parallels between Reconstruction and the problems in Iraq or any other kind of nation building. It is kind of amazing that it only took 100 years or so after the Civil War to largely get the Civil Rights movement to be successful there.

We get perplexed when Southerners complain about the Civil War today, but compared to the long memories in Yugoslavia it isn't bad at all.

[flanna.kersting]

Whether they believed it or not is one thing but a Black man in the north was the legal equal of a White man. Many in the North may not have wanted it but that is the way it was with some exceptions. (We should point out that a Gay man is the equal of a Straight man with some exceptions.)

That is incorrect. Blacks didn't have universal suffrage in the north, for example.

[CoallyPax]

Just want to say good job guys. The subject could've had a lot of vitriol but this has been one of the more intelligent and knowledge-based discussions on this blog! Everyone who has posted here clearly knows their stuff and is a student of history.
Kudos!

[Gorlummm]

Yes slavery was a big part but I’m not sure if a large % of the North & South really cared abt freeing the slaves. In the North, even though their economy didn’t rely on slaves, they were by no means abolitionists and many historians claim the north was more racist then the south.

The South had an extremely strong belief in States rights and their opposition to a strong centralized federal government was important. The tariffs imposed on the South hurt their economy while the north loved it because it protected their industries. The territories, out West, where being settled by people whose economic interests were with the North not the South. With the increasing commercial regulations, the South was being outvoted in both Houses on economic regulations and the Western settlers increased the prospect of an increasing majority.

An interesting book I read that explore the States rights and economic conditions that led up to the Civil war is ‘War for What’ by Francis W. Springer.

Amazon.com: War for What (9780931709029): Francis W. Springer: Books

[v74ClzKY]

Yes slavery was a big part but I’m not sure if a large % of the North & South really cared abt freeing the slaves. In the North, even though their economy didn’t rely on slaves, they were by no means abolitionists and many historians claim the north was more racist then the south.

The South had an extremely strong belief in States rights and their opposition to a strong centralized federal government was important. The tariffs imposed on the South hurt their economy while the north loved it because it protected their industries. The territories, out West, where being settled by people whose economic interests were with the North not the South. With the increasing commercial regulations, the South was being outvoted in both Houses on economic regulations and the Western settlers increased the prospect of an increasing majority.

An interesting book I read that explore the States rights and economic conditions that led up to the Civil war is ‘War for What’ by Francis W. Springer.

Amazon.com: War for What (9780931709029): Francis W. Springer: Books

Anyone ever see the Simpsons where Apu had to give an answer about the cause of the Civil War on his citizenship test?

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of
the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious
schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists,
there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

[acissombiapse]

That is incorrect. Blacks didn't have universal suffrage in the north, for example.

Very good. I assumed that a land holding Black man in the North would generally be able to vote. However, there were specific laws to address this. I didn't assume that every Black man would be able to vote in the North. Which is to say that basically a Black man in the North was as treated as a non-citizen.

[mv37afnr]

Very good. I assumed that a land holding Black man in the North would generally be able to vote. However, there were specific laws to address this. I didn't assume that every Black man would be able to vote in the North. Which is to say that basically a Black man in the North was as treated as a non-citizen.

Yeah, here is an interesting read from the Historical Society of Pennsylvania that gives an overview of this topic. The state constitutional convention in 1838 actually made sure the verbage stripped away black male ability to vote and was only fixed via the federal 15th amdenment.

Free Men and "Freemen": Black Voting Rights in Pennsylvania, 1790-1870 | www.hsp.org

Northern states were far from the romanticized egalitarians they are portrayed. Things may have been better for blacks in parts of the north, but they were far from equal, even in the eyes of the law.

[MadMark]

Yes slavery was a big part but I’m not sure if a large % of the North & South really cared abt freeing the slaves. In the North, even though their economy didn’t rely on slaves, they were by no means abolitionists and many historians claim the north was more racist then the south.

The South had an extremely strong belief in States rights and their opposition to a strong centralized federal government was important. The tariffs imposed on the South hurt their economy while the north loved it because it protected their industries. The territories, out West, where being settled by people whose economic interests were with the North not the South. With the increasing commercial regulations, the South was being outvoted in both Houses on economic regulations and the Western settlers increased the prospect of an increasing majority.

An interesting book I read that explore the States rights and economic conditions that led up to the Civil war is ‘War for What’ by Francis W. Springer.

Amazon.com: War for What (9780931709029): Francis W. Springer: Books

Every state has a "states rights" issue. The South's states rights issue was the continuation of slavery which they spent a great deal of capital and time to extend and protect. To this end states rights "issues" were of great importance to the South to protect the big issue of slavery.

[jackie Obrian]

Yes slavery was a big part but I’m not sure if a large % of the North & South really cared abt freeing the slaves. In the North, even though their economy didn’t rely on slaves, they were by no means abolitionists and many historians claim the north was more racist then the south.

There is no doubt about the first sentence. The Draft Riots in New York are a prime example of urban Northerners resisting being sent to war to "die for Negros", and the abolition of slavery because it would create a huge new class of free laborers that would likely be in competition with Northern whites for factory jobs. Whether they were more racist than Southerners is really just conjecture. They definitely had way less experience cohabitating with black people, but most Northerners probably disagreed with at least the underlying principles of slavery...even if they were happy that it kept poor, black people away from their cities.

The South had an extremely strong belief in States rights and their opposition to a strong centralized federal government was important. The tariffs imposed on the South hurt their economy while the north loved it because it protected their industries. The territories, out West, where being settled by people whose economic interests were with the North not the South. With the increasing commercial regulations, the South was being outvoted in both Houses on economic regulations and the Western settlers increased the prospect of an increasing majority.

An interesting book I read that explore the States rights and economic conditions that led up to the Civil war is ‘War for What’ by Francis W. Springer.

Amazon.com: War for What (9780931709029): Francis W. Springer: Books

As for this, I mean, it always seemed to me that the South became very interested in states rights only after Northerners began expanding into other states and they needed to protect their insane little economic bubble. I don't really feel sympathy because hitching a huge region's economy to a system that relys on a segment of the working population surrending all their rights and education, and basically mandates agrarianism is a pretty sure way to guarentee that your society is going to be at odds with most of the rest of the world.

[medshop]

As for this, I mean, it always seemed to me that the South became very interested in states rights only after Northerners began expanding into other states and they needed to protect their insane little economic bubble. I don't really feel sympathy because hitching a huge region's economy to a system that relys on a segment of the working population surrending all their rights and education, and basically mandates agrarianism is a pretty sure way to guarentee that your society is going to be at odds with most of the rest of the world.

I don't want states rights to be invalidated or considered wrong just because the South wanted to invoke them for an evil end. The ends don't justify the means, but they don't invalidate a paticular means forever either.

[CruzIzabella]

The states powers arguments are being selective. Again, for an example, read up on the Nullification Crisis.

[mirvokrug]

I don't want states rights to be invalidated or considered wrong just because the South wanted to invoke them for an evil end. The ends don't justify the means, but they don't invalidate a paticular means forever either.

Well....it's more about Southern States being disingenuous about the importance they placed on this issue. In theory the South cared about states' rights, but they seemed perfectly happy to manipulate those states into choosing the "correct" right (freedom to own slaves) if it didn't look like things were going to pan out for them.

Bleeding Kansas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They also didn't seem to much care for Northern states excercising their right to not recognize slave status, or have any problems forcing lawmen in other states to be subject to fines for not upholding their system of slavery. I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem very states right-y to me.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[RichardHaads]

The North couldn't boast being that much more civil than the South -- child labor and indentured servitude pretty much scratched that out.

[lapyignipinge]

I hypothesize that slavery was little more than the wedge issue of the day. It served as the flag, if you will, to rally around.

[Zaxsdcxs]

I hypothesize that slavery was little more than the wedge issue of the day. It served as the flag, if you will, to rally around.

Actually, this was the time people actually started to rally around The flag. Before the start of the war, the US flag was only seen on government buildings, only after the shooting started did you start to see flags flown over homes and business'.

[Fsfkkkjz]

Odd that I just came about this thread today. Two days ago I came across the movie "CSA: Confederate States of America"

This was unlike anything i've seen taught me some things i did not know. Watch till the end and you may be surprised as well.

here is the netflix link
Netflix: Rent as many movies as you want for only $8.99 a month! Free Trial

CSA: Confederate States of America
2004 PG-13 89 minutes
What would the United States look like if the South had won the Civil War, slavery was still legal and liberals had fled to Canada? According to filmmaker Kevin Willmott (an assistant professor at the University of Kansas), it would resemble the vision put forth in this provocative mockumentary, set in a modern-day Confederate States of America. Spike Lee lends his name as a producer to this daring, if discomforting, parody.

Cast:Sean Blake, Fernando Arenas, Richard A. Buswell, Larry Peterson, Rodney Hill, Charles Frank, Jon Niccum, Troy Moore, Ryan L. Carroll, Rupert Pate Director:Kevin Willmott Genres:Comedy, Mockumentaries, Spoofs and Satire, Indie Comedies, Political Comedies, Dark Humor & Black Comedies This movie is:Cerebral, Quirky Availability:Streaming

Here's the movie's website...
C.S.A. The Movie Website

[legal-advicer]

I don't believe this because plenty of whites in the North didn't believe black folks were equal (and even now some still don't). Slavery wasn't widely practiced in the industrial north only because the North was less agrarian by the 1860s. Machinery took the place of the slave.

Slavery was forbidden in the Union States with the exception of Maryland and was so since the days of the Constitution, which is what led to the debate over how to count a slave. You just spew raw **** don't you.

[Drugmachine]

Slavery was forbidden in the Union States with the exception of Maryland and was so since the days of the Constitution, which is what led to the debate over how to count a slave. You just spew raw **** don't you.

Free states vs Slave states over time, for support (not all were since the days of the Constitution, but pretty much shortly after).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US..._1789-1861.gif

[oemcheapdownload]

Seems like an apt time to start this dialogue with the 150th anniversary of the shots at Fort Sumter. Here's some interesting poll results:

Civil War still divides Americans – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Personally, I find it utterly ridiculous to claim that slavery wasn't the MAIN cause of the Civil War. Granted, states' rights was a factor, but it seems to all stem from the slavery issue.

So lets have at it. Someone please tell me why slavery was not the MAIN cause of the Civil War?

[outfinofulpv]

Of course it was. The election of a Republican to the white house was the trigger and no one back then made any pretense to pretend that it WASN'T about slavery.