Isn't it true that the outbreak of the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery?
Interesting find but I fell upon the fact that the civil war wasn't fought over slavery - but 'unburdened taxation' on the south.
Now I ask, is there the same unfair taxation today over immigration?
You betcha.
The Confederate constitution states in Section 9:
Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights
1. 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.
2. 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.
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html
THIS WAS THE SAME LAW THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR.
Well, it was one of many things in the mix, but Lincoln himself wrote in the early days that it was not about slavery. Later he and others corresponded about how they could market the war and their part in it (given that the Constitution supposedly was to let states succeed if they didn't want to stay in) by championing freedom for slaves. Also, of course, declaring slaves free when the men were away at war was a huge financial blow to the southern enemy, during the war.
It isn't that it was NOT about slavery (the northern farms couldn't compete any more than family farms now can compete with agribusiness) but that it was like 'WMD' to Iraq - a politically expedient slogan to rally around, from what I understand.
I didn't know it had anything to do with immigration or taxation.
I always thought it was a "States Rights" vs. "Preserve the Union" conflict (triggered by the question of slavery - since the southern states and Lincoln really disagreed on this point).
The U.S. Supreme Court was actually very favorable to the south's position on slavery at the time and the Attorney General had concluded that the states had the right to succeed, but the seizure of U.S. property by the C.S.A. was deemed an Act of Rebellion and began the war.
This is not my area of expertise, so enlighten me if I'm wrong.
A great divide existed between the north and south, economically, socially, culturally and politically. The North's economy was industrial-based, the South's agricultural. The North favored strong federal government, the South endorsed state's rights. The North promoted abolition of slavery, the South's economy depended on slavery, although many people by the onset of the war had freed slaves. Slavery was the moral issue in the causes of the war. Abolitionist policies, rhetoric and active attempts to free slaves via the Underground Railroad was seen as an attack on southern states' rights. As new territories were opened and states added the issue of slavery added to the growing controversies. The final straw, Abraham was elected president, and before he was sworn in seven states had already seceded. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.
Lincoln and other Republicans feared the economic and political power base of the South. Lincoln refused to accept the secession of the Southern states. He refused to recognize the rights of the states to secede. It was actually a battle of politics, federal government or states' rights. The Cherokee nation aligned itself with the South and seceded to join the Confederacy.
Civil War was not fought to free the slaves... it was fought to preserve the Union. Freeing slaves was an afterthought, and actually a very shrewd way for the South to be kept down. Without the slaves to do all the manual labor for free, the South would not rebound so quickly and be able to start another war.
Plenty of whites in the North were no fan of having free black people in this country.... racism has been prevalent in the North, although it was not necessarily as blatant or legitimized as it was in the South with the Jim Crow laws.
Anyone saying that the North just wanted to be nice and free the slaves is kidding themselves.
Fallow the money, one of the major reasons was the south was getting better money from England for their Cotton. The textile factories were going under, the English were transporting it cheaper than the merchant ships in the north so they also were being hit by it. Congress argued back and forth, the south started to pull out,etc. etc.. Yale u. has a document page, good stuff to read about this kind of stuff. History belongs to the victorious.