St George flag dropped because it could offend Muslims

[LeMaquis]

The start of the civil war was caused by the secession of South Carolina from the Union and the firing on the Federal Armoury at Fort Sumter by the South Carolina militia.

When several other southern States followed suit and seceded Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union. The issue of slavery was one that was seriously dividing north and south but it was to restore and preserve the Union and not slavery that led to the start of hostilities. It wasnt until near the end of the civil war in 1865 that the Union Congress passed a bill to abolish slavery but at that time America was split into two nations with Jefferson Davis still President of the Confederated States of America.

 

The original secession was a reaction against Lincoln not allowing slavery to spread. Secession was a decision taken by South Carolina and other southern states rejecting a refusal for more widespread slavery. You missed that bit. You've deliberately ignored the original pro-slavery decision of the South and then tried to turn history on its head again by saying "Lincoln went to war" having admitted the South seceded and then fired the first shots.

[Chris_Sleeps]

It's easy to condemn the mentality and opinions of people who lived nearly two centuries ago. It's a bad habit to pass judgement from the point of view of an enlighted 21st century mind.

Nonsense. That's what history should do. The notion that building an opinion is a bad habit is laughable.

 

It was equally true that the Southern States split because they were coming into economic contest with northern industrialised workforces who thought it unfair that a man could be owned by someone else. It was a free market argument - because it's hard to compete against slave labour.

 

'Uncle Tom's Cabin' was a hugely popular novel and there was a small network of people helping runaway slaves move north and build new lives. The Supreme Court passed a landmark law that a runaway ***** was property and should be.sent back to his owner. There were also examples of ***** families being torn apart and sold to different people.

 

There was also the issue of which new midwestern states would be slave owning and which wouldn't. Another economic contest that was pushing the issue to the front of people's minds.

 

Slavery was an issue in the Civil War. I'll agree with you adding context - but I won't let you whitewash it out of the history.

[Harleyman]

Nonsense. That's what history should do. The notion that building an opinion is a bad habit is laughable.

 

It was equally true that the Southern States split because they were coming into economic contest with northern industrialised workforces who thought it unfair that a man could be owned by someone else. It was a free market argument - because it's hard to compete against slave labour.

 

'Uncle Tom's Cabin' was a hugely popular novel and there was a small network of people helping runaway slaves move north and build new lives. The Supreme Court passed a landmark law that a runaway ***** was property and should be.sent back to his owner. There were also examples of ***** families being torn apart and sold to different people.

 

There was also the issue of which new midwestern states would be slave owning and which wouldn't. Another economic contest that was pushing the issue to the front of people's minds.

 

Slavery was an issue in the Civil War. I'll agree with you adding context - but I won't let you whitewash it out of the history.

 

In an earlier post I mentioned that the southern States saw Lincoln as a tyrant who was interfering in States right's.... the rights in question being whether they could choose to use slave labour or not.

 

It seems that when the union of States was formed in the years after the War of Independence that the founding fathers agreed that Virginia and other southern States which joined the union at that time had the right to keep slaves and use them as labour. This must definitely have been the case otherwise the union of former northern and southern British colonies could never have evolved into an American Union of States.

 

Having agreed and accepted the rights of States to keep or not keep slaves it seems logical to assume that when Lincoln and others in Washington called for an end to slavery that politiicans in the south saw it as the Federal government going against an agreement already made some 80 years before and butting his nose into States rights. They therefore decided that the Constitution was invalid and go their own way.

 

These politicians didnt look at slavery as a moral issue but just from a Constitutional point of view. After all Washington and Jefferson themselves were slave owners and if "progressives" in the north had suddenly found slavery as immoral then it was no affair of the south or it's way of life.

 

My point is that it's necessary to understand the mind set of the times and not condemn them all as being "evil" They were products of their times.

 

Obviously the issue of slavery wasnt a first priority with Lincoln or the Union Congress either because it wasnt until about 4 years after the start of the civil war that the 13th Amendemnt was finally passed and with several 'nay" votes and "no votes" which indicated that ending slavery wasnt a 100 percent clear cut agreement by all.

 

Many northern politicians were uneasy about the whole deal fearing that freeing thousands of slaves might end up in bloodshed, violence or as a revolution of some sort