What I learned in this thread: there's a new bike I need (either the AMF version or that lovely General Lee Sportster) and don't ever cross Sarah

 

Alexander H. Stephens
Vice President of the Confederacy
Cornerstone of the Confederacy speech
Days before the the bombardment of Fort Sumpter


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. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.




Or you can look directly at the Declaration of Secession from several states

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/prima...ww.google.com/

 

You see, that's one part is where you are wrong. Slavery did exist in the Northern region before and after the war, that's where the big argument of the war was about slavery falls apart, even though the Northern Region folks deny it or just forget about it.
Still the largest port of entry for over half the slaves that came to the US was in Rhode Island, followed by Baltimore, New York and Boston. Close to 75% of the slaves that were brought into America came in and were processed North of the Mason Dixon line. Most of the Northern states had slaves, one of the highest percentages of slaves were in the Washington DC area, followed by New York, New Jersey and Missouri.

 

Remember always that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation DID NOT free any Northern slaves. He allowed Northern slave owners to keep theirs.

 

The North then as in now was not some cohesive monolith - however, most Northern States had passed legislation abolishing or gradually abolishing slavery well before the Civil War.

Several slave states (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri) did stay loyal to the Union during the Civil war, and you are correct, the Emancipation Proclamation did not directly free the slaves in those states, however, all of these states passed internal laws voluntarily abolishing slavery following the Proclamation.

Lincoln's Proclamation did what it could do within the confines of his power as president, but it is important to remember that the proclamation was just a single and small step by Lincoln. The Emancipation Proclamation was signed by Lincoln on January 1st of 1863 and the 13th amendment was ratified by the states on December 6, 1865. (Slowed by his assassination)

Now, the federal government had a lot bad laws and rulings leading up to the civil war and shouldn't sit on some high horse. The Fugitive Slave act and the Dred Scott decision being among the most egregious - most of this was driven by political concessions of the day.

And before anyone gets offended - Neither Slavery in the South nor Abolition in the North were driven by evil or enlightenment - it was economics. Listen to the story of George Washington @ Mt Vernon who hired a skilled blacksmith to come apprentice an able bodied slave so that he could leverage the free labor. It gives you an insight into the perceptions and economic strategies of the time.

The Southern economies were tied to agriculture and specifically the cotton market - Slavery was a cornerstone of that economy and for most Southern States there simply was no migration path from slave state to free. The economies would and did collapse following the end of the Civil War.

The sole driver of the articles of Confederacy and the Civil war were federal anti-slavery movements that had been going on for years. Numerous attempts by the federal government to limit both the application and expansion of slavery.

Thus: States Rights....

Any of the other clouded arguments you hear is revisionism and simply intended to obfuscate the realities of the time. The North and specifically President Andrew Johnson following Lincoln's death bolo'd reconstruction and I believe facilitated and exacerbated the struggles of the Civil Rights period in the late 1950's and 60's in the South.

During this period following WWII an obscure battle flag of Northern Virginia was adopted as a banner by the Dixiecrats - a group of conservative white southern Democrats committed to states' rights and the maintenance of segregation and opposition to federal intervention into race.

 

Apologies to OP and original thread, I was trying to stay out but the lure was too strong.

No. You point out a lot of great facts but you're leaving out the largest single motivator for the common southern man. Most didn't even own slaves, outside of the plantations the folk who were rich enough to have a slave or 3 wouldn't dream of mistreating them. Only a fool would mistreat a large capital investment and it was near social pariah - you would be the subject of gossip and ridicule like an alcoholic or an adulterer. The plantations not so much.

Regardless though, the main reason a man would take up arms was state rights. It was a different mindset and people were citizens of their states first. The closest modern analogy might be to imagine what would happen now if the UN threatened military force against the US. How dare you threaten my homeland? That was a southern thing, as you note it was not so much so in the north. Newspaper editorials thundered the sovereignty of the state. Why can't we exit the union? Why are we invaded when all we want to do is go in peace? What kind of deal did our grandfathers sign that forces us to be unwilling participants in a union we no longer desire? It was a principle. Slavery ignited it but it wasn't just racism that fueled the fire, it was a fight for freedom from government - much like (to the south) the revolution that created the union. Of course we need to be in the UN but I would fight for the US today if the UN threatened military action to keep us from withdrawing. Wouldn't you? That was the perceived choice at the time and so off we go to war.

Agree with you on the later issues and segregation etc, but I wanted to get that in there. Most folk don't take it into account.

I had never heard of the confederate themed bikes, it was interesting to learn of them.

 

What's for lunch?

 

bidets... just another white guilt concern troll. Or maybe another black racist.

 

The common man doesn't start wars he only fights wars - the motivation of the elites and politicians of the time is the point we are debating. They are the ones that promoted the succession from the union. Most of the southern soldiers could give a **** less about slavery and frankly most of the northern soldiers didn't care much if Alabama left the union.

Let's also separate something else. The North had no noble "end slavery" motive in this war. The North's only motivation was to keep the union together.

The South's motivation was State's Rights and the "right" they were most concerned about was the erosion of their rights to maintain their slave economy.

 

Spam, from the looks of it