Friday, 26 August 2011

Civil War South Seceded Over "State's Rights" but Didn't Want NY & New England to Have Their "State Rights"?

Question by BRUCE: Civil War South Seceded More than "State's Rights" but Did not Want NY & New England to Have Their "State Rights"?
New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states ought to not have the Right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they mentioned threatened slavery.

South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed "slavery transit." In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to invest August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer — and South Carolina's delegates were outraged.

On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina's secession convention adopted a "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union."

It noted "an growing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery" and protested that Northern states had failed to "fulfill their constitutional obligations" by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states' rights, birthed the Civil War.

Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world," proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861.

"Its labor supplies the item which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

The South's opposition to states' rights is not surprising. Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government.

Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that appropriate. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights — that is, the correct of Northern states not to support slavery.

Why would The South Secede over "States Rights" but Oppose non-slaveholding States Their "State Rights"??????

Wasn't This Mostly All About State's Right to Own a Slave?????

Finest answer:

Answer by W.C. Felcher
If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the initial option to a continuance in union without having it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States ought to withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every single nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter and hold the former at arm's length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war."

--Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

President Franklin Pierce was determined to turn over an escaped slave from Boston - a center of abolitionist activity - in order to show Southern politicians that Northern states would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, a important provision of the Compromise of 1850.

"I have no objective, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful proper to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Abraham Lincoln, Inaugural Address 1861

Give your answer to this question below!

Orignal From: Civil War South Seceded Over "State's Rights" but Didn't Want NY & New England to Have Their "State Rights"?

No comments:

Post a Comment