How about the Constitution? You remember, the law of the land, that was written to limit the powers of the federal government? And specifically the Ammendment being discussed in this thread, the 10th: It means, literally: "The powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution, are given to the States, or the people." The government has no power to act on laws that are not specifically within the constitution, plain and simple. They have no right to enact any federal laws outside of the scope granted to them BY THE CONSTITUTION.
Who was the labor needed by those farms? Why did the south derail provisions in the Wilmot proviso that would not allow new states to allow slavery? Why did the South want States freedoms to override Federal laws i.e. nullification? Oh hell, just read this and then try and declare slavery wasn't a root cause. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
Your points regarding the South's secession and Lincoln's leadership are understandable but the South overrid the Constitution by seceeding before Lincoln even did anything to them. As soon as he was elected Southern states worked to secede. Granted he was an abolishionist who didn't want slavery in any new territories or states, but he didn't care so much as to remove it from where it already existed. He did say something exactly like.. "If I could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave I would do it." after all..
Of course it is. It's a certain group of people leaving a nation and forming a new one. That's the principle. If you agree that people should be allowed to do that, then the South had the right to do it. If you disagree with it, you must also disagree with the forming of a new nation by the American colonies. It's very basic. Taxation without representation was a significant cause of both wars. </blockquote> Nail on the head sir! There were many "justifications" for the civil war as were pointed out by the apologists. But all wars are always justified by both sides. Thats how these people convince so kany to fight. Regardless, the american civil war established that america is NOT a free land. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
[quote data-cid='18230278' name='Tripace' timestamp='1371601682' post='18230278'][quote data-cid='18229802' name='ICGreen' timestamp='1371594416'] What State's rights? Hopefully you're not pushing the idea of the Articles of Confederacy which prohibited the Feds from taxing? [/quote] How about the Constitution? You remember, the law of the land, that was written to limit the powers of the federal government? And specifically the Ammendment being discussed in this thread, the 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/quote] It means, literally: "The powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution, are given to the States, or the people." The government has no power to act on laws that are not specifically within the constitution, plain and simple. They have no right to enact any federal laws outside of the scope granted to them BY THE CONSTITUTION.[/quote] Truth. Ironically the tenth ammendment was put in place to stop things like the civil war from happening Lincoln was a traitor. The confederates were defending america. Yea slavery is bas but this isnt about slavery (and the north knew it) Yup. Everyone is up in arms about the 2nd and 4th ammendments. The tenth is the most important and its been gone for a while. Why is the tenth ammendment so important? So states can be free to chose their own laws. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
What if the "rights" that a State wants goes against "All men are created equal"? </blockquote> Two wrongs dont make a right. Slavery is unconstitutional. But once again slavery was not the main cause of the civil war. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
The fact that Lincoln would have ended the war and kept slavery as long as the South stayed in the Union proves it wasn't about slavery. That's the real history. Even if it was for slavery, which it wasn't, that still wouldn't be justification for it. Every other nation abolished slavery without a civil war, if that is your justification for the war, you are still very much in the wrong.
The thing your missing is - I am not and have no need to justify the war. I am just responding to the "ones" that want to repaint history and facts. Get over it, Slavery played a major role in the Southern States secessions and declaration of war.
Perhaps not in your revisionist version, but history (and the facts) states otherwise. </blockquote>But they dont... The north wasnt some heroic group trying to protect civil rights. The north banned slavery in the south to crush the economy without freeing their own slaves. Slavery was the last straw that tipped the scale, but like gay marriage, was a red herring irrelevdnt to the actual issue, which was federal tyranny Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Then what was the tyranny? That they would have to pay taxes and new states couldn't have slaves? Let's look at a couple of sources. Hmmm, still looks like slavery was a major factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War The American Civil War, also known as the War between the States or simply the Civil War (see naming), was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 between the United States (the "Union" or the "North") and several<sup>[3<span>]</sup> Southern slave states that declared their secession and formed the Confederate States of America (the "Confederacy" or the "South"). The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery, especially the extension of slavery into the western territories</span> http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm 1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South. With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order. 2. States versus federal rights. Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession. 3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents. As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where pro-slavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence, Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when anti-slavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks. 4. Growth of the Abolition Movement. Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states. 5. The election of Abraham Lincoln. Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.
Actually, the primary cause of the Civil War were ridiculous tariffs imposed by the Federal Government in order to support ineffectual Northern industry. Essentially what was happening was, the South was producing large quantities of raw resources, most of which were being shipped overseas where they were manufactured into final goods. The North was trying to hop on the manufacturing train, but their products were inferior, and by extension less valuable, so they could not compete with the input prices paid by foreign producers. So, they petitioned the Federal Government to place tariffs on exported goods, in order to incentivize the Southern plantations to sell their inputs to Northern factories. The Slave thing was tacked on at the last minute in order to add a moral justification for the Federal Government's manipulation of tariffs in order to favor one domestic business sector over another.
Then what was the tyranny? That they would have to pay taxes and new states couldn't have slaves? Let's look at a couple of sources. Hmmm, still looks like slavery was a major factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War The American Civil War, also known as the War between the States or simply the Civil War (see naming), was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 between the United States (the "Union" or the "North") and several[3] Southern slave states that declared their secession and formed the Confederate States of America (the "Confederacy" or the "South"). The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery, especially the extension of slavery into the western territories http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm 1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South. With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order. 2. States versus federal rights. Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession. 3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents. As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where pro-slavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence, Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when anti-slavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks. 4. Growth of the Abolition Movement. Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states. 5. The election of Abraham Lincoln. Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. </blockquote> You basically proved my point. The main issue of the civil war was weather or not states had to submit to federal authority. Slavery was the same as marijuana legalization. The people who were defending slavery truely believed blacks were not people and what they were doing was ok. Im not justifying slavery. The north didnt free its slaves when lincoln signed the emancipation proclimation. The civil war was fought over "nullification" basically. California is a good example of history repeting itself. The state government made medical marijuana legal. The federal government ignored state law and raided legal dispenseries. California didnt fight back. But its just the start. And its not just marijuana. Many states are once again trying "nullification" and this is what started the first civil war. this discussion is relevent today. If the federal government continues to grab power and ignor states rites, eventually there will be another civil war. And it will be fought over the same issue. States rites vs federal power. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
No one is repainting history. Revisionism is neutral in itself. It can be bad, if the changes add to errors, or it can be very good, if the changes add truth to the narrative. The Lincoln revisionism done by libertarians is of the latter kind, as is pretty much all libertarian revisionism. Libertarians overall value truth higher than other groups, and far more than statists. Even Marxists have a truer understanding of history than statists, which is really sad.
So Libertarians want to say it wasn't about slavery, although slavery was the main contention, because it also involved the 10th Amendment. OK.
Exactly. It's the same reason for the Revolutionary War, taxation without representation. The primary reason for both wars was the same, but people who can't think for themselves can't see the amazingly obvious staring them in the face.
I guess I'll repeat myself for you... Libertarians want the truth, nothing more or less. Lincoln revisionism isn't just a libertarian thing though, scholars from many different backgrounds have been participating.