Posted on 01/18/2015 11:26:40 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
Who said that they were the same thing?
You seemed to indicate that they were.
I never said that the slavers were logical.
Don't be silly. The men who made these decisions were serious and intelligent men. Many took a long time to consider their decision because they were very reluctant to leave the union of which they were so long a part. You don't go start a war over something the president just guaranteed you can keep.
Also, I hope you know that there were quite a few Southern unionist slaveholders, who supported the Union because they desired security. They feared that secession would cause a conflict that would result in the loss of their slaves. If slavery was the only issue one cared about, the to stay in the Union was by far the best choice.
Fixed it for you. The only reason Marx took interest was because Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation - you remember, the thing that supposedly didn't free any slaves?
You haven't been reading lew rockwell again have you?!
Given Marx's view on labor and the working class one could hardly expect him to side with the proponents of slavery could you? But other than recognizing he need to end slavery there wasn't a lot that the two men agreed on.
Fair enough, I think I'll do just that (not that I haven't done so before!)
Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Hmmm. That means that it will be deemed unconstitutional to pass a law that would interfere in the Peculiar Institution (that's slavery for those in Rio Linda).
Article IV Section 2(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Fancy that. This means that one cornfederate state can't pass laws that infringe on the right to free and unfettered ownership of negros owned by a resident of another cornfederate state.
Article IV Section 3(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.Well I do declare! This clause says that any new states that are admitted to the cornfederasy shall be slave states. How 'bout them apples?
Seriously. I can't find where the article at your link says that Marx agreed with everything Lincoln did. Lincoln was anti-slavery. So was Marx. That's about the limit of their ideological match.
And yes, the Emancipation proclamation didn't free a single slave. How could it? It had no legal effect in the states that were governed by the Confederacy (just like our government wouldn't be effected by an executive order issued in Britain). And it didn't free the slaves in the northern states. It specifically said so. It also specifically said that slaves in union held territories in the south were also exempted from freedom. So which slaves exactly did it free? And why was the 13th amendment still necessary?
Emancipation Proclamation = Draft Riot Act
They both agreed on big government. Big government isn’t effective if people can just walk out of it when it starts to crush their freedoms. That is why Marx and Engels supported Lincoln’s push to create a “single and indivisible republic.”
The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
Really? You’re going to stoop to hair-splitting?
OK then, it didn’t ban the slave trade - it only banned the importation of slaves from other countries.
When talking about the slave trade, that is most often to what it refers to.
There was no need to import more - they had reached a population level that was well more than self-sustaining. Slave trade meant trading in slaves.
Big government in what way? How was it manifesting itself in 1860?
In more liberal groups like the Republican party for example. Keep in mind when studying the civil war that the republican party back then was the liberal party and supported a larger role for government, whereas the democrat party was the conservative party and supported states rights and lower taxes.
The election of Lincoln freaked out so many people in the south because he was from this new liberal party (of which so many south-haters were members and supporters of btw) which was created in the north and really had mostly northern interests in mind. Also, if you look at the electoral map of 1860, you will see that it was a purely sectional election of a sectional party. The only states that voted for Lincoln were northern states. Not a single southern state voted for him. When the south saw that this new liberal pro-tarrif party with really only sectional interests in mind had been elected, they had good cause for concern.
And don't underestimate the money issue here. While Lincoln had stated in his inaugural address that he had no intention of passing any laws against slavery, his party was a pro-tariff party and he had campaigned in certain northern states on the tariff issue. The North was of course all in favor of tariffs to protect their industry. The South, however, being more agricultural and needing to import many of their goods, hated the tariffs. South Carolina almost seceded over tariffs in the 1830s. The republican party in 1860, however were planning a new high tariff which they were trying to pass through congress which would increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%. This was much higher than the tariff proposed in the 1830s which South Carolina almost seceded over. Charles Dickens published a lengthy article in 1861 saying:
"If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.