... never mind that slavery was legal ONLY in 'the nation that he invaded'. Whatever slavery was being practiced in the North was ALREADY under the legal coverage that the proclamation simply and legally extended to the South (that 'nation that was invaded', of course), and all that needed to be done was to have the law ENFORCED.
Your move.
Oh and P.S., how could the Confederacy be considered a 'foreign nation', if the U.S. didn't officially recognize it as such?
A number of years I was required to take an American history course in college. It was right up until the civil war and stopped on the civil war and continued there after. The civil war class was a class by itself for a complete semester. One thing I remember the professor speaking about and he was adamant. He said the civil war was not about slavery period as we have always understand. Furthermore I had the chance of meeting a man once in Meidville Pennsylvania. He literally had in his study filled up shelf upon shelf and it took up the whole wall of documented storys of the movements day in and day out of negatives or positives. It is usually written by younger officers. I had to provide input to my LT while in the Army and this is how they document actions. Not to get off track here just some insight. Anyway. I have known this man to have an appetite for the civil war as he would go out and collect relics with a metal detector and had artifacts. I posed the question of what was the cause of the war and he said it was all economics and money. He said the north was moving into the industrial revolution and the south did not or could not go in that direction. I am open to comments from anyone as I have I have always been curious.
This professor of yours who was so *adamant* that the war was "not about slavery period", has anyone asked him about all the slavery-related issues that directly contributed to the events leading up to and including the war? Has anyone ever asked him just why it was that the South seceded that got Lincoln to take action?
Oh, I just thought of something. What about Fort Sumter, and the South's attack on that? In this professor's opinion, does that count as a directly contributing factor as to why the North responded militarily? One thing I noticed with all the Confederate apologists here on the board, is that they make no mention of Fort Sumter as the direct cause for Lincoln's military response. :unsure: I wonder why that is? So, technically, it was the South that started the war, ... not the North, as it was the South that attacked federally owned land that that base was upon.
It would be like Cuba attacking Guatanemo Bay (sp?).
Anywho, in any event, and in keeping within the context of this thread, Craiggers wouldn't know history if it came up, signed his green card, took his class, gone into the Corps, ... and bit him in the arse.
Reading the posts re: states rights here, I cannot avoid the impression that some of those posting in support of said states rights are including the right to own slaves (ie., owning human beings, ok?) as part and parcel of the states rights package, or at least are implying that the issue of states rights ought to take precedent over the need for the abolishment of slavery (ie., owning human beings, ok?). As tho' the federal government had no right to come in and tell the states that they had no right to own human beings as slaves.
Tell me I'm wrong please, ..... and demonstrate why.
I would hope that none of us currently believe that slavery is right, or that our government should not only have the right, but be expected to stop slavery anywhere in the United States, and condemn and oppose slavery anywhere in the world.
However your question above forgets the time period and the attitudes of the time. Slavery, at the time was a legal institution and, sad to say, the majority of the people at the time did not see a problem with it. Many even thought of their slaves not as humans, but as animals. These people would have argued with the idea that their slaves were human. The result of these attitudes is that those who owned slaves and the states that allowed slavery would have considered this part of their states rights package. Thankfully we have outgrown this attitude. But it would have been very prevalent then, even among the people of the North. The attitude that slavery was evil and wrong was only beginning to really grow among the people of the time and had not yet reached the point of majority opinion, even in the North. Thankfully it was the opinion of those in power.
So the basic answer to your question is two fold. Yes, many of the southern states at the time would have said that the Government did not have a right to come in and stop slavery. No, today, we would not even give it a second thought that the government has right to stop slavery today and it should be placed above states rights.
... never mind that slavery was legal ONLY in 'the nation that he invaded'. Whatever slavery was being practiced in the North was ALREADY under the legal coverage that the proclamation simply and legally extended to the South (that 'nation that was invaded', of course), and all that needed to be done was to have the law ENFORCED.
No, the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the US states, only the states in rebellion. Slavery was legal in the United States during the War Between the States. However, some states in the north, most, had passed laws doing away with slavery by 1861.
Your move.
Oh and P.S., how could the Confederacy be considered a 'foreign nation', if the U.S. didn't officially recognize it as such?
Well, I don't know, Garth, but this "nation" showed the north for 4 years that they recognized themselves as such in the most bloody war the states have ever fought.
NOW it's your move. ;)
Anywho, in any event, and in keeping within the context of this thread, Craiggers wouldn't know history if it came up, signed his green card, took his class, gone into the Corps, ... and bit him in the arse.
Recommended Posts
GarthP2000
Duly noted.
... never mind that slavery was legal ONLY in 'the nation that he invaded'. Whatever slavery was being practiced in the North was ALREADY under the legal coverage that the proclamation simply and legally extended to the South (that 'nation that was invaded', of course), and all that needed to be done was to have the law ENFORCED.
Your move.
Oh and P.S., how could the Confederacy be considered a 'foreign nation', if the U.S. didn't officially recognize it as such?
NOW it's your move. ;)
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
fellowshipper
A number of years I was required to take an American history course in college. It was right up until the civil war and stopped on the civil war and continued there after. The civil war class was a class by itself for a complete semester. One thing I remember the professor speaking about and he was adamant. He said the civil war was not about slavery period as we have always understand. Furthermore I had the chance of meeting a man once in Meidville Pennsylvania. He literally had in his study filled up shelf upon shelf and it took up the whole wall of documented storys of the movements day in and day out of negatives or positives. It is usually written by younger officers. I had to provide input to my LT while in the Army and this is how they document actions. Not to get off track here just some insight. Anyway. I have known this man to have an appetite for the civil war as he would go out and collect relics with a metal detector and had artifacts. I posed the question of what was the cause of the war and he said it was all economics and money. He said the north was moving into the industrial revolution and the south did not or could not go in that direction. I am open to comments from anyone as I have I have always been curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Tell me something then.
This professor of yours who was so *adamant* that the war was "not about slavery period", has anyone asked him about all the slavery-related issues that directly contributed to the events leading up to and including the war? Has anyone ever asked him just why it was that the South seceded that got Lincoln to take action?
Oh, I just thought of something. What about Fort Sumter, and the South's attack on that? In this professor's opinion, does that count as a directly contributing factor as to why the North responded militarily? One thing I noticed with all the Confederate apologists here on the board, is that they make no mention of Fort Sumter as the direct cause for Lincoln's military response. :unsure: I wonder why that is? So, technically, it was the South that started the war, ... not the North, as it was the South that attacked federally owned land that that base was upon.
It would be like Cuba attacking Guatanemo Bay (sp?).
Ooopsie!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Anywho, in any event, and in keeping within the context of this thread, Craiggers wouldn't know history if it came up, signed his green card, took his class, gone into the Corps, ... and bit him in the arse.
Do I hear an Amen to that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
I would hope that none of us currently believe that slavery is right, or that our government should not only have the right, but be expected to stop slavery anywhere in the United States, and condemn and oppose slavery anywhere in the world.
However your question above forgets the time period and the attitudes of the time. Slavery, at the time was a legal institution and, sad to say, the majority of the people at the time did not see a problem with it. Many even thought of their slaves not as humans, but as animals. These people would have argued with the idea that their slaves were human. The result of these attitudes is that those who owned slaves and the states that allowed slavery would have considered this part of their states rights package. Thankfully we have outgrown this attitude. But it would have been very prevalent then, even among the people of the North. The attitude that slavery was evil and wrong was only beginning to really grow among the people of the time and had not yet reached the point of majority opinion, even in the North. Thankfully it was the opinion of those in power.
So the basic answer to your question is two fold. Yes, many of the southern states at the time would have said that the Government did not have a right to come in and stop slavery. No, today, we would not even give it a second thought that the government has right to stop slavery today and it should be placed above states rights.
Edited by KeithLink to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Thanks, we finally agree!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.