was the civil war over slavery
Debate Rounds (3)
First of i would suggest that you should read the secession documents. The word "slave" or "slavery" appears 35 times in the Georgia secession document. It appears 7 times in the Mississippi document. It is in the South Carolina document 18 times. Texas 22 times. Alabama 1 time (but domestic institution also appears which is a euphemism for slavery). And so on. In some cases you need to read the resolutions of the secession conventions--Arkansas March 20, 1861 for example. Slavery is front and center. http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net...
South Carolina pretty much destroyed the idea that the Civil War was over states' rights in its declaration. The state said that several northern states "have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them." They were very upset about this because these states' laws often allowed slaves to stay as freemen if within their territories. Okay, so the Civil War was about states' rights, unless that state didn't agree with the institution of slavery? Right.
But oh, Mississippi. They're a little bit off hinge nowadays, but back in the day, they were straight forward with their beliefs. Their declaration literally says that they're leaving the Union because their "position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."
It's a bit long to post the whole declaration here, but seriously, go read it. They literally say that slaves are necessary because only Africans can handle the type of heat experienced through work in the South.
Ah, and the good old Peach State: Georgia. They wrote a lengthy declaration and actually cited numerous sources (something unheard of in the conservative party of today), but it all broke down to "leave our slaves alone!" One reason Georgia left is because a provision in "the Constitution [that] requires them [Northern states] to surrender fugitives from labor."
Georgia, not one to not go all out, also said "Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals [runaway slaves] who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us." That's right: runaway slaves were criminals and Georgia was mad that the North wasn't returning them. In fact, go ahead and read Georgia's declaration as well. It's a bit longer, but there's literally not three sentences that go by without mentioning slavery as a cause for secession.
There are my first parts of my side.
The South was the one who wanted to secede..
Reading words from the vice president of the Confederate States of America he says:
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions"African slavery as it exists among us"the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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."
Yea, you didn"t read that wrong. That is the Vice President of the Confederacy stating point blank that the only cause for secession was the institution of slavery.
Also, why are you bringing Lincoln in your argument? The south declared secession from the North in December 24, 1860. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, and by then 7 states had already seceded...
I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?
Now this is only a number one general that wrote a letter saying that slavery was wrong and since it is only one person i give you another the President of the Confederate Sates of America.
"African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing."
This says a quote from Jeff Davis himself saying
AFRICAN slavery exists in the United States which should prove my point that the war was not over slavery because the United States used this as a political blessing which allowed the Union to say that the war was over slavery a. this is possibly another reason what the war was over all of it could have been politics. Last thing i have to say please vote for me this stuff was looked up in books and several places where it talks about this cruel war and i have looked up the quotes on brain quote for every ones information it is pretty hard to find this stuff since it has been hidden for over a hundred fifty years.
Golfer15 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate