Re: Article by Article comparison of the USA and CSA constitutions
Agreed Strike, as long as those states' rights don't interfere with the rights of the its citizens, or go against the very fabric of the country's ideals and values. The phrase in the Declaration of independence "...that all men are ceated equal and ordained with certain inalienable rights by their creator." are no mere words to be forgotten when inconvenient. This is what the South of the 1860's was doing when claiming that their reason for war was "States Rights".Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The main "rights" they wanted to protect were those which denied freedom to blacks within their states, and to continue the institution of slavery. As President Lincoln stated "I believe that this nation can no longer endure half slave and half free..."
There is often a vast difference between the "reasons" that a nation choses war, and the act of secsession was an act of war in everything but name, and the "causes" of a war. While the south claimed the reason was to protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government, and the north claimed they were preserving the Union, in fact both sides were trying to protect their vital economic interests.
The south feared the loss of its slave labor, the hinge-pin of southern wealth, while the north was upset over the loss of profits because the southerners refused to buy the north's inferior steel farm implements and machines. Better quality implements could be obtained by trading cotton for them with Britain. Thus, the tariff act placed on all imports by the largely northern dominated congress. This was one of the acts that pushed the south closer toward war before even Lincoln was elected. The north was also reliant on the south for food to feed its larger population as growing seasons were obviusly shorter in the north. Secsession threatened a loss of access to these commodities. In a sense, both sides felt threatned by the others actions.
Respectfully,
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks