Essay: The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War

HIST: Discussions about the last 4000 years of history, give or take a few days.

Moderator: K. A. Pital

User avatar
Vehrec
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2204
Joined: 2006-04-22 12:29pm
Location: The Ohio State University
Contact:

Post by Vehrec »

Greed. They wanted to get votes according to their population, bud didn't want to pay taxes for slaves or something. As a result, the 1/3 clause.
ImageCommander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18631
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified
Contact:

Post by Rogue 9 »

Naked greed for the most part, though occasionally someone would try to disguise it as something else. I don't have the references for this on hand, but I recall reading of arguments to the effect that slaveholders are responsible for caring for their slaves (yeah, sure) and should therefore get a greater say in the workings of government to enable them to do so on their property's behalf. Then there was couching said naked greed in terms of "we produce more for the economy using these slaves," which again goes back to naked greed; it's just a thin attempt to justify it.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician
User avatar
Hawkwings
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3372
Joined: 2005-01-28 09:30pm
Location: USC, LA, CA

Post by Hawkwings »

No, I mean, they keep saying "slaves are not people" yet they want them as 1/3 of a person for voting purposes. Why are slaves worth 1/3 of a person, and a horse isn't? For that matter, their cotton gin should count as 20 people because it allows them to be more productive.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, how did they justify having these two opposing viewpoints (slaves are property vs. slaves are 1/3 of a person)? And not have anyone call them out for "Well, what is it? Are slaves property, or people?"
Vendetta wrote:Richard Gatling was a pioneer in US national healthcare. On discovering that most soldiers during the American Civil War were dying of disease rather than gunshots, he turned his mind to, rather than providing better sanitary conditions and medical care for troops, creating a machine to make sure they got shot faster.
User avatar
Simplicius
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: 2006-01-27 06:07pm

Post by Simplicius »

Hawkwings wrote:No, I mean, they keep saying "slaves are not people" yet they want them as 1/3 of a person for voting purposes. Why are slaves worth 1/3 of a person, and a horse isn't? For that matter, their cotton gin should count as 20 people because it allows them to be more productive.
No one would ever argue that a horse or a cotton gin should be counted in a census, no matter how productive.

It's a matter of convenient doublethink. When it came time to set taxes in the Articles of Confederation, slaves were 'property' and so should not be counted for population-based tax apportionment. When it came time to set federal representation in the Constitution, slaves were 'people' and so should count for representation in the House. The fact that the 'people' and 'property' arguments were made at two different times, for two different purposes separates out the contradiction a bit, since this was an administrative issue and not an ethical one.
Adrian Laguna
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4736
Joined: 2005-05-18 01:31am

Post by Adrian Laguna »

It's 3/5ths, not 1/3rd. Also, that clause of the Constitution is called the "3/5ths Compromise", it wasn't double think or trickery, but rather the result of competing interests. The Northern states wanted slaves to count for nought, because they were property, the Southern states wanted slaves to count as people as a way to counter their disadvantage in terms of (free) population. In order to get the Southern States to approve the Constitution, the Northern states agreed to compromise about half-way. Though even with that, the Northern states still managed to surpass the South in population-based legislative power eventually, which the South (rightfully) saw as a threat to the institution of slavery, and contributed to their decision to secede.
User avatar
Warsie
BANNED
Posts: 521
Joined: 2007-03-06 02:08pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Post by Warsie »

Isolder74 wrote:The truth of the matter of the Civil War was that the South succeeded because they didn't like the outcome of the Presidential Election and were whiny crybabies when they lost their pocket yes man in the White House. They had already lost the fight to force Kansas to be a slave state and had just lost their leverage in Congress because of it. .
Wasn't the election extremely slanted and divided into regionalism to the point that no southern electoral votes went to Lincoln, and he wasn't even on the popular ballot in many southern areas?
Last edited by Warsie on 2008-04-25 07:26pm, edited 1 time in total.
Adrian Laguna
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4736
Joined: 2005-05-18 01:31am

Post by Adrian Laguna »

Warsie wrote:Wasn't the election extremely slanted and divided into regionalism to the point that no southern electoral votes went to Lincoln, and he wasn't even on the popular ballot in many areas?
What do you mean by slanted? It's true he wasn't in the ballot in nine Southern states, but despite that he still ran away with half a million votes more than Stephen Douglas, which is considerable given the total vote was 4.7 million.
User avatar
Warsie
BANNED
Posts: 521
Joined: 2007-03-06 02:08pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Post by Warsie »

Adrian Laguna wrote: What do you mean by slanted? It's true he wasn't in the ballot in nine Southern states, but despite that he still ran away with half a million votes more than Stephen Douglas, which is considerable given the total vote was 4.7 million.
slanted by region.
Post Reply