Suppressed Information

Dec 2017
262
Florida
The southern attitudes on these issues were grounded in the institution of slavery.

And the rebels didn't make constitutional arguments but based their rebellion on the right to make a revolution. Had they been Constitutionally minded they would've taken their grievances to the courts.

Note too that the slaveholding southern elites were keen on expanding Federal powers when it served their interests such as the Fugitive Slave Act and the weakening of state powers seen in the Dred Scott decision.

Please explain how tariff issues in the antebellum period were dependent upon slavery? How was the opposition to public works programs and canal/infrastructure spending related to the slave trade? How cultural differences which were exacerbated by regionalism were JUST about slavery? Just saying slavery caused it all is a very shallow understanding of the antebellum period.
 
Dec 2017
262
Florida
Which federal powers were causing ill feeling?
Why were regional differences contributory to bringing about war?
Which economic policies caused such bad feeling as to help bring about a state of war?
The power of the federal government to spend money on infrastructure programs in the country. Many southerners felt it did not have the power to do that but many northerners cited the necessary clause as a reason for allowance.

Regional/economic differences included tariff issues, diplomatic stances with foreign nations, national banks, manifest destiny, immigration, the debate of whether to even have a standing army and navy.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,401
Caribbean
Had they been Constitutionally minded they would've taken their grievances to the courts.
You mean like Prigg v Penn? They took their grievnce to the federal court and won, to no avail.

Note too that the slaveholding southern elites were keen on expanding Federal powers when it served their interests such as the Fugitive Slave Act and the weakening of state powers seen in the Dred Scott decision.
Where is the expanse of power of the general government? I would reserve the word "expanding" powers to circumstances in which someone makes a claim outside the existing rules. If it is the existing rule, then there is no "expanding."

The basic principle of federalism is that if it crosses a border, it is in the jurisdiction of the general government; while if it is within a state, it is domestic jurisdiction. This principle is codified in the Constitution. With respect to fugitive slaves that cross borders, the jurisdiction of the general government over this was established in Art IV, Sec 2, was enforced by the "founders" in the 1791 Fugitive Slave Act, which was later affirmed by courts in the the aforementioned, Prigg v Penn of 1842.

If you don't mind, can you give an example of "slaveholding southern elites" vying for an actual "expansion," ie not the enforcement of a general-government power that hadn't been so well and so clearly established from day one?
 
Last edited:

Zip

Jan 2018
573
Comancheria
Please explain how tariff issues in the antebellum period were dependent upon slavery? How was the opposition to public works programs and canal/infrastructure spending related to the slave trade? How cultural differences which were exacerbated by regionalism were JUST about slavery? Just saying slavery caused it all is a very shallow understanding of the antebellum period.
The type of agrarian system that formed southern attitudes was a result of slavery. Farming on a large, almost industrial scale and the need to defend slavery caused a regional insularity and a lack of enterprise and industry. Slavery affected almost all aspects of southern society including the nature of agriculture, the care of the land, migration patterns and immigration.

As for tariffs, the Southerners had the tariff thing going their way until they rebelled.

In any event the one regional difference that caused rebellion was slavery. I think if the Southern states had not had slavery they wouldn't have rebelled. Had they not had slavery their society and needs would've been profoundly different. Hell, I see lingering effects of slavery in modern southern Whites.

Do you think there would've been a rebellion without the need to defend slavery?
 
Last edited:

Zip

Jan 2018
573
Comancheria
Where is the expanse of power of the general government? I would reserve the word "expanding" powers to circumstances in which someone makes a claim outside the existing rules. If it is the existing rule, then there is no "expanding."
Hmm. You might have me, given your definition. I gotta think about this.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,706
San Antonio, Tx
Lincoln could never have been elected if he supported the abolition of slavery. However, the situation changed with the war and Union victory. Similarly, you could not be elected now supporting slavery. Inf fact, I haven't seen anyone argue for it. You also could not have been elected in the south 60 years opposing segregation and could not be elected now supporting it.

This seems like what you see on some sites with all sorts of Lincoln quotes and so on taken out of context. You can't argue today that the Confederacy was right to fight for slavery, so it has to be presented that the war wasn't really about slavery.
It was about slavery for the South; it was about preserving the Union for the North. By firing on Ft Sumter, the South sealed its fate and that of its ‘peculiar insitution’ of slavery. Had they not given into their more extreme elements who were spoiling for a fight, the South might have had another ten or twenty years (maybe more) to enjoy slavery, but it was all going to end sooner rather than later.

On paper, the South could never have won a protracted war; it didn’t have either the manpower or resources to outlast the Union. Northern generalship was pretty feckless in the beginning. Later, when a real general (Grant) showed up by moving east, it was curtains for the South.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Iraq Bruin

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,706
San Antonio, Tx
I have a deep dislike for negro leaders ,
it started with hunting and selling their people in Africa and later to sell them in Washington for personal advancement
beside being loud , they demonstrated a remarkable ability to do very little beside playing the guilt song
a sorry example is elijah Cummings , now hailed as a great statesman , who did very little for the US
after 23 years as the boss of the 7th congressional district
he watched Baltimore become a cesspool but didn't really care because they still voted for him
this fitted nicely with the Washington overall vision of keeping the Negroes prisoners of various political machines
any dissenters had to be communists
So you think the Republicans offer a better contemporary alternative for American Blacks? When you wake up, do please let me know. I agree that African Blacks trafficked in slavery but there are two sides to every purchase: seller and buyer, so if you’re going to denounce African Blacks for selling their own people, you must logically also denounce American Whites for buying them. There’s more than enough guilt on both sides of the Atlantic to go around.

Elijah Cummings was a great man, gone way too soon.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,706
San Antonio, Tx
Can you explain the other root causes please?
Slavery was the root cause for the South. It was not a cause for the North to send troops into the South. That was Secession. The South pretty much had had a monopoly in Washington and saw this as not only threatened, but basically as doomed. The South was so devoted to the ideas of our founding fathers and to the nation that they tried to destroy it.