Racism is often equated with the confederacy. Do you think this is valid?

Question

In my opinion, the south was in violation of the constitutional axiom that "all men are created equal". Thus, as members states of the union, slavery should not have become institutionalized.

But the issue that led to Lincoln's war of agression was NOT slavery. The issue of the war was the rights of the states over the federal government which was encroaching into areas prohibited by the 10th amendment.

If the south had abolished slavery before the end of the war, it would have taken the wind out of Lincoln's sails and the right side would have won the war and we would have a functional Constitutional Republic without slavery today.

Both sides were wrong, but confederacy is a good form of government, and not at all associated with slavery.

Answer 1

No.

Answer 2

Racism, Slavery, and Southern States in American Civil War, are separate issues, with some overlap.

Canada is a Confederacy. The provinces have the right to leave if they want to.

Once upon a time Canada was 100% English speaking except for French majority in Quebec, who voted to have Quebec leave, because of all the discrimination against French speakers. If that had happened, it might have been the end for Canada ... look at a map of population distribution.

The rest of Canada recognized Quebec right to leave, did not want them to leave, so extraordinary actions were taken to eliminate Quebec grievances. Today Canada is bilingual, English and French. The Confederacy survived.

While all men were created equal, the US constitution at the time of the founding fathers also said that black men were fractions of white men, and that women had no rights to own property or vote..

Perhaps we read different history, but my understanding was one issue was whether or not a member of the Union of USA is allowed to leave once joined to the rest.

This is why Puerto Rico is appealing to the United Nations. This is why various Indian tribes are asking the UN to intervene in USA violating treaties.

Southern states thought they had the right to leave if they did not want to be members any more. Northern states thought no state had that right. So the South left, and there was a war over it, but Lincoln did not start that war.

In the American Civil War, it was the South that secceeded from the Union, and it was the South that started the war, by firing on Fort Sumpter. Maybe things would have been different if the South secceded and never declared war on the North.

The South had better generals.
The North had more troops.
Technology had improved things like accuracy and range of guns, while the troops had been trained based on the old techology.
That combined to make it a very bloody war.

I think that more died at Gettysburg than all the wars of the Napoleonic era.

Answer 3

Slavery was not the reason that the VAST MAJORITY of southerns fought on the side of the Confederacy. Very few people owned slaves. If the war had been about slavery, then why did Lincoln wait until 1863 to free the slaves. And then Lincoln only "freed" the slaves in the states that had seceded from the Union. Lincoln needed a hook to win "World Opinion" to the side of the north. He was afraid of England entering the war on the side of the South. Anyone who enter the war on the side of the south after that would be branded as supporting slavery.

The power of the federal government to regulate trade was a major factor. Basically the North wanted a high import tariff - to protect their fledgling factory and industries. The South wanted to maintain a low tariff as their industry was agricultural and they HAD to import items.

The war had MANY MANY reasons and factors. Slavery was only one reason.

Answer 4

I think your question and theory are seriously flawed. First of all, the states' rights issue was dwarfed by the taxation issues. The states wanted to tax each others' good in transit, something forbidden under the commerce clause.

Morever the North was just a racist as the South.

Finally, the Constitution was written noting very clearly that slaves were to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for taxation purposes.

Article I, Section 2, Cl. 3 of the Constitution provides:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

This provision was abolished by the post-civil war amendments 13, 14 and 15 to the Constitution.

Prior to the civil war the states controlled whether they permitted or forbade slavery. However, slavery was not prohibited by the Federal constitution.

Answer 5

since only app, 3 or 4 % of the people in the south were wealthy enough to own a slave, and if the others did own a slave they could not have fed them, are you naive enough to believe that 96 % of the able bodied men in the south fought the civil war so the wealthy slave owner could keep his slaves? hell no they didn't they fought for states rights as every state was a independant country, by our constitution, but the northern textile manufacture wanted to pay $3 a bale for cotton, but, England and France would pay
14 to $18 per bale, when the south started shipping their cotton to England and France the northern Jew textile manufacture put pressure on Lincoln to stop it so lincoln sent ships to blockade southern docks and shipping that is when the south fired on Fort Sumpter, starting the civil war, mean while when lincoln instituted the draft the northern men were so busy hanging blacks from lamp poles they didn't have time to fight, so lincoln had fefugees from England , Irland, Germany and any where else he could get them to come to America and fight with the promise of free land and citizenship,only app, 5 to 7 % of the northern men actually fought for the north they didn't want to fight against their own kind and many relatives, also , slavery was on its way out any way as it was never very profitable, at that time a slave cost between $1500 and $3000 and sometimes as much as $6000 so how could it be profitable, but, by share cropping it was more profitable, and that is the direction they were moving, share cropping is still to this day a very profitable method, for both the land owner and the share cropper,

Answer 6

Racism is a belief or doctrine that differences in physical appearance between people (such as those upon which the concept of race is based) determine cultural or individual achievement, and usually involve the idea that one's own 'race' is superior.

The confederacy protected slavery for persons of african decent, so in that regard it was racist (Had they permitted white slavery, they would not have been).

But I believe most northerners were racists at that time too. Also, slavery wasn't the only defining characteristic of the confederacy.

Answer 7

It's about time someone on here actually knows what they are talking about. You'll never get any credit for it though with all the ignorant PC people on this website.

The Confederate Government had little to do with slavery because few people in the south actually had slaves. On top of that many slaves worked voluntarily because there life here as a slave was alot better than it had been in their native countries.

Answer 8

i read a book about Lincoln, and I think the stuff we're taught in school is all wrong about him and his "motivations" to stop slavery. It put forth a good case that he only stopped slavery to get more control of the South. It's very convincing.

Answer 9

Valid points, but historians have made it all about race. Actually if our founding fathers had not been racist the Civil War would not have been at all about slavery.

But, the South was very wrong about slavery and it still took another hundred years to make any headway abolishing discrimination against blacks. It still isn't over.

Answer 10

racism was everywhere,it was possibly more prevelant in the south. as far as the slavery issue,read the confederacys constitution

Answer 11

Race was only one factor in the confederacy.

Slavery at the time was considered an economic matter, not a social matter. (Certainly, there were many who saw through the economics to the underlying moral issues, but the reason people owned slaves was to better themselves and their families economically.)