You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
3

[–] randommook 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The Confederate states broke off from the US precisely because of slavery. This is not a secret. In fact many states even issued declarations when they seceded explicitly stating this.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences. In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof. The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made…. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. …We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2011/01/why-the-confederate-states-seceded/#sthash.hDvYZYGQ.dpuf

It says right in their declaration that they are seceding because the North has not respected their slavery laws and has not returned their "property" when their slaves escaped to the north. Slavery is the principle cause for the southern secession.

You can also look at Mississippi's secession declaration you'll find much of the same

So yes. The confederation states primary reason for seceding was because the North did not approve of or support the South's slavery. The war was about slavery from Day 1 the emancipation proclamation just formalized that the president was frustrated with the South and that if the North won slavery was going to be done with because it had already caused too many problems and kicked off this shitstorm.

So the Confederate flag is offensive and racist because it is the flag of a 'country' whose sole reason for existence was that it wanted to continue to own slaves. To suggest that the South seceded from the United States for any reason other than slavery is very much revisionist history.

0
1

[–] MommaSpitfire [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The slaves were the driving force of the thriving agriculture and economy in the South. Not having the slaves returned affected the economy because the more slaves that ran away, the less crops were being planted and harvested. The North didn't actually ban slaves in their supportive border states until the war was even over.

0
2

[–] randommook 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The slaves were the driving force of the thriving agriculture and economy in the South. Not having the slaves returned affected the economy because the more slaves that ran away, the less crops were being planted and harvested.

No nation in history kept slaves because it sounded fun. Slaves have always served SOME function within a society that kept them but that doesn't make the war any less about slavery.

Yes, the South needed a large cheap workforce to keep its plantations running so yes there were economic aspects to their use of slaves. Yes, the South was worried that they would be screwed if slavery was abolished. None of that changes that the South seceded from the United States for the sole reason that they wanted to continue the institution of slavery.

The war didn't become about slavery. The war was always about slavery from day 1.

The North didn't actually ban slaves in their supportive border states until the war was even over.

As for why they didn't officially ban slavery until the war was over it was simply due to the fact that they didn't want to deliberately piss off their remaining border states until the war was over. Officially declaring the end of slavery would be largely meaningless until the war was over anyway because the Confederation would not recognize their law until the end of the war.