At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
I have always believed it had more to do with states rights than slavery. The abolishment of slavery was one of the only good byproducts of a horrible time in our history.
well i studied the subject at advanced higher level at school and am about to do it again at university, i took the position for my dissertation that the break down of the 2 party political system and other political issues at the time had more to do that slavery which was basically propaganda, im hoping to finish my degree and specialise in this area and was just wondering other peoles views and criticisms of other views and hopefully have a prouctive discussion in which i can learn a bit more about the subject
thot id just quickly mention that i love the killers aswell and saw them live at t in the park it was awsone and they played a half hour after set...top class
Slavery was the spark, but states rights was the tinder. Its true that had slavery not existed the war would probably not have happened. But it was the defense of the their right to not have the north poke their noses into their affairs that was behind the desire to go to war.
Actually it was expansion of slavery into the territories that were going to become new States and the balance of power disruption that would've resulted that was the primary cause.
Let's face it ; the union was until that time a series of fragile compromises ;some of them written directly into the Constitution like the 3/5th compromise ....and others that were forged by grand negotiations in Congress like the Missouri Compromise. That compromise system fell apart around the time when Nebraska and Kansas were being considered . The debate about free or slave states broke out into open violence warfare there before the first shot was fired at Ft. Sumter.
Then SCOTUS fanned the flames with the ridiculous Dredd Scott decision which gutted key provisions of the Missouri compromise.
I still contend that all other regional issues would've been resolved without war if the issue wasn't slavery . Secession had been contemplated and peacefully resolved twice before when issues of States rights were the issue. It was slavery that became the one issue that could not be compromised away.
however president lincoln and the republicans were blamed as bringing slavery into politics before the war and the southern states seceeded apon winning the election as a republican government was seen as being anti slavery where a number of other political issues were just as crucial such as the temperence movement, immigration and migrants and as tomder55 said the dredd scott descision which was heavily southern influenced yet the war was not started over slavery nor was it intended to remove the institution of slavery it was a biproduct of a war fought primarily over key political issues and immigration if you think about it, lincoln really didnt have a choice other than to free the slaves with so much hype and drama over slavery during the war it was the right time and really the only time to do so as if he didnt he would have faced mass critiscism from northern politicians
actually I will have to disagree with many here, slavery had little to do with the war, it was not even untill closer to the end that Lincoln ever abolished slavery and most beleive it was done only because of a fear of losing the war and that a revolt of the slaves may help in winning the war.
The biggest issue was the money, taxes and where they were being spent.
And this was a states rights issue, remember the US was suppose to be a republic and that only those powers specificly given to the federal government could be inforced to the states.
It was used of course as a political window dressing since even after giving them their freedom they still remained with no rights.
Linear Mode
