How we know the so-called ‘Civil War’ was not over slavery

[stjames1_53]

How we know the so-called ‘Civil War’ was not over slavery
by Paul Craig Roberts

~snip~
When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article ( http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017...merica-empire/ ) the question that lept to mind was, “How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn’t fighting against slavery?”
Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.
Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.
If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery. ~snip~

https://personalliberty.com/know-cal...r-not-slavery/
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017...merica-empire/

I've been saying there was more at stake here than meets the eye...........this is an interesting read.
The 13th A freed no one. This and the 14th A, in fact, enslaved us to the federal government. All are equal in federal slavery
It is my contention that the North needed those southern ports, so the war, in part, was fought over real estate

[Crepitus]

Yer off yer nut dude. The succession movenment was started over lincoln's election on a platform that limited slavery to places where it already existed. The sole goal of the South in the civil war was preserving and extending slavery. That is and will remain a fact no matter how many RWNJ blogs you quote from.

[Ethereal]

Yer off yer nut dude. The succession movenment was started over lincoln's election on a platform that limited slavery to places where it already existed. The sole goal of the South in the civil war was preserving and extending slavery. That is and will remain a fact no matter how many RWNJ blogs you quote from.

Actually, their goal was to dissolve the union with the north. Slavery was merely incidental.

[Ethereal]

There was zero threat to slavery in the south when the south seceded. That is a fact.

The south simply decided that it was no longer in their best interests to continue their political connection with the north. It had absolutely nothing to do with any fear over slavery being abolished in the south.

[midcan5]

I may have answered that in the thread below but I'll add pertinent info for the interested reader. As for the apologist for the confederacy like any belief nothing will convince them as their belief is not based on fact but an emotional connection.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...t-Our-Heritage



States Rights apologies - The *Civil War was over Slavery

A few documents and sources about a topic that constantly finds apologists and revisionists. This will be a work in progress as new sources of information are found.

"I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

[b]But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html

[b]"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

"In this unprecedented account, Chandra Manning uses letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers to take the reader inside the minds of Civil War soldiers-black and white, Northern and Southern-as they fought and marched across a divided country. With stunning poise and narrative verve, Manning explores how the Union and Confederate soldiers came to identify slavery as the central issue of the war and what that meant for a tumultuous nation. This is a brilliant and eye-opening debut and an invaluable addition to our understanding of the Civil War as it has never been rendered before." http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...andra-manning/

"In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including 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...."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...s-over/396482/

"Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. " WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers and Slavery


John Bingham and the Story of American Liberty: The Lost Cause Meets the 'Lost Clause' https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=343460


Southern arguments for and against: http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...st.html?cat=37

Argument v Lincoln's position: http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

Does the constitution allow secession: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War

SCOTUS ruling on secession: Texas v. White

Admission of state to union FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18

"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act "entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support "this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from above url)

And an early OP on topic.

John Bingham and the Story of American Liberty: The Lost Cause Meets the 'Lost Clause'

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=343460

[Hoosier8]

There was zero threat to slavery in the south when the south seceded. That is a fact.

The south simply decided that it was no longer in their best interests to continue their political connection with the north. It had absolutely nothing to do with any fear over slavery being abolished in the south.

True, slavery was still legal. Lincoln was always against slavery and thought creeping emancipation would eventually abolish it but used his war powers act during the civil war to free the slaves of confederate states.

[Ethereal]

If the constitution does not allow for secession, which is exactly what Americans did when they rebelled against the British, then it is totally illegitimate.

[Ethereal]

True, slavery was still legal. Lincoln was always against slavery and thought creeping emancipation would eventually abolish it but used his war powers act during the civil war to free the slaves of confederate states.

He "freed" them and then about a million of them got sick and/or died. Many others returned to the plantation in order to work as de facto slaves because they had no real opportunities or skills aside from living on a plantation and working for a master. The northern "liberation" of southern slaves was exceedingly well thought out, obviously.

[Hoosier8]

If the constitution does not allow for secession, which is exactly what Americans did when they rebelled against the British, then it is totally illegitimate.

The constitution says nothing about secession. The illegality was decided by the Supreme Court in 1869 with Texas v White.

[Ethereal]

The constitution says nothing about secession. The illegality was decided by the Supreme Court in 1869 with Texas v White.

If that's the case, then the constitution is illegitimate.