Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Regardless of the page slavery is stated quite emphatically as one of the "Immediate Causes" for secession.
In saying that there was no reason to secede over slavery because Lincoln stated he would never allow the institution of slavery to be diminished is putting the cart before the horse. Many states in the South had already seceded before before Lincoln gave that speech. Jefferson Davis had been inaugurated as the President of the Confederacy two weeks earlier. Lincoln was backpedaling to try to appease a South that had already seceded over slavery among other reasons as stated in their causes for secession that I linked to above. That Lincoln was a Republican, a party formed in part to combat the spread of slavery, was not lost on the South as evidenced by both their words and actions.
oh and BTW, Turkish people are more similar to Dutch people than, say Egyptians in my experience
Yep.. immediate, on page 81.
CSA Constitution said:1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
[7 times ensuring property rights of slave owners.
Yes, they banned imports, and allowed states to ban slavery if they wanted, and allowed free states to join if they wanted... trying to have "big tent" outlook. they didn't want to exclude states just because of slavery. For the south the more union states they could win over to their side the better.
But fact remains, blacks were property, as defined by their constitution, and according to Alexander Stevens, that was the "corner stone" on which the confederacy was built, and was the "truth" that the founding fathers failed to see.
The cornor stone speech totally rejects the ideals that make America what it is.
So, most the time slaves are mentioned, its reaffirming the white mans right to own them as property?
I agree there were other factors involved in the civil war, but to say it wasn't about slavery, or slavery played no factor, is flat out wrong. They were building a slave empire, where the "negro" was by law forced into his rightful place as subjugated to the white man.
I live in Texas, was born in Mississippi and parents are from Alabama, I'm a southern boy through and through, but i don't buy into this Civil War was only about states right argument.
They were building a slave empire by banning all imports of slaves? Really?
Big tent? How did banning imports of slaves make a "big tent"?
All that did was hurt their own slave trade.
"The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons.
"What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction ... are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. ...
"The North understand it better -- they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits -- surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death."
The man who argued that there was no need to secede over slavery? That man?
Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. StephensThe new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization...
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically....
This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time....
Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."...
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Neither the Union nor the confederacy accepted the ideals that make America what it is... that's part of the discussion at hand. The way you see America today IS NOT the way America started.
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.
They were building a slave empire by banning all imports of slaves? Really?
Yes, slaves are not afghan rugs, get a male and female and you can breed many many more. so many, you might end up with too many to control.
But slaves are just like afghan rugs in the eyes of their owners. Property can be living or non living.
Horses, Cows, well basically all livestock is considered property is it not and they all breed and make lil babies right? So slaves back in that time was considered property. The slave owners had to list them as property.
How is the treatment of women in Egypt as THEY start THEIR representative democracy, different from our treatment of slaves as WE started OUR representative democracy?
Many things, their treated as property, but not bought and sold like commodities. Its not so much an institutional subjugation but cultural. I think early US was the opposite. Culturally, I think most believed it was wrong, but it was ingrained in the institutions, and a vital economic component. I think the idea of subjugation of the black man flowed more from how ingrained in the economy and institutions slavery had become. Many in the South were scared if the slaves were freed, and continued breeding in such numbers, there would be fighting in the streets.
In the middle east, it seems more the other way, its not so much the institutions that subjugate women (though they do) but a cultural understanding of their rightful place.
Our institutions had to have time to catch up to our moral standards... I don't think those same moral standards exist in the middle east (for the most part) and don't have a lot of hope their institutions will then improve morally such as ours did.
Interesting thoughts on the situation, but unfortunately, there is nothing available to support your belief that the majority of people knew that slavery was morally wrong.
On the other hand if a man becomes a parent, chance are he will spend more time at work, work harder and produce more for the company. Which is one of the many reasons, men make more then women.
Uhh... how about a war that nearly destroyed the country? How about the entire abolition movement?
What about Alexander Hamilton helping to found the first African free school in New York?
Thats utter sexist BS. I've got a 3 week old at home, and can assure you I'm not spending more time at work because of it. The idea all men want to avoid caring for a baby is just as sexists as anything your complaining about.
Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery.
Actually, the current prevailing logic is that men feel a greater need to be a better provider for their family, and therefore work longer and harder because of it..
Why do you not respond to the Britanica entry it starts out presenting the idea you say there is no evidence for.
Yes, sexist prevailing logic... just saying. And, this 'prevailing logic' would only make sense for men working jobs paid by the hour.
You cannot extrapolate the founding fathers' views on slavery to the entire population. The Founders were far more educated than the general population.
Sexist logic? This was actually documented in a study.
Men have a different psychological response to the responsibility of children.
No one said the whole population. We're talking cultures here not every individual. I don't think for a second the entire population of Egypt agrees with things like FGM and honor killings.
But the founding fathers, did a lot to influence American culture and were representative of that culture at the same time. They weren't just a random collection of people, there we're the cultural, military and political leaders of the time.
I'd like to see that study... again, it would only hold for hourly workers. I'm salary, I can work 100 hours of overtime, and it will mean nothing except more time away from my daughter.
That I agree with, but don't think that manifests itself in pointless unpaid overtime.
And honestly, I think what she was getting at was men work more trying to stay away from home. I've actually had that given to me as advice... and I've seen guys who hate their wives spend as much time at the office as they could. I refer to these kinda of guys as a feminine hygiene product.
What I took offense to was the generalization, that since these men exist, that try to avoid home because they can't stand their wife and don't want to take care of the baby, that all or most men are like that.
Not all of the founding father's believed that Slavery was wrong. You can't extrapolate from the Continental Congress what the cultural understanding of the day was. Those leading the Continental Congress were uncharacteristically educated.
cultural leaders? I don't think you are quite factoring in how slow communication was back then. There wasn't one unified culture like we have now. Not even within a single state.
They were still the cultural leaders of the day. Take the constitutions itself. It's done untold amounts of shaping and guiding culture. The opinions of the men that wrote it do the same.
I wouldn't say we have one unified culture today even... thats not how culture works. You can have a capitalist and communist living side by side, but still say something about the capitalist culture of the United States. Even within my town theres Hispanic culture, hip-hop culture, white culture, and more all existing and mingling together.
I'm not saying that they didn't do great things and do a lot that influences culture, even to this day.
That doesn't mean that their educated views were the norm.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
