Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to In The Clutch, where sports is all that matters! We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a spectator. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. It's all that stands between you and participating in sports news discussion, live event discussion, and a variety of pick-the-winner and discussion competitions. And we promise not to hunt you down, stalk you, or sell your personal info for a whole tenth of a cent.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Civil War; role of slavery overemphasized?
Topic Started: Tuesday Mar 21 2006, 03:16 PM (486 Views)
PSUSyr5
The Board Idiot

This debate has taken off...let's see if we can revive it.

When the souther states were deciding whether or not to seceed, the #1 selling point was slavery.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ihaveaglitch
Tackling Dummy
From civalwar.bluegrass.net

Quote:
 
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."



The southern states seceded because the government was going to abolish slavey. According to the constitiution they were well within their rights to do so. Lincoln went to war to preserve the union not end slavery, he only did that in order to lure the slaves in the confedrate army in to defecting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PSUSyr5
The Board Idiot

Very interesting.

So one would say that if slavery wasn't an issue, the southern states wouldn't have seceeded and so there wouldn't have been a war, yes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ihaveaglitch
Tackling Dummy
sre141
Mar 25 2006, 07:44 PM
Very interesting.

So one would say that if slavery wasn't an issue, the southern states wouldn't have seceeded and so there wouldn't have been a war, yes?

I guess that's something we will never know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PSUSyr5
The Board Idiot

Ihaveaglitch
Mar 25 2006, 07:56 PM
sre141
Mar 25 2006, 07:44 PM
Very interesting.

So one would say that if slavery wasn't an issue, the southern states wouldn't have seceeded and so there wouldn't have been a war, yes?

I guess that's something we will never know.

Fair enough...I guess that was a bit of speculation on my part.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Everything Else · Next Topic »
Add Reply