Why do so few blacks study the civil war?

[motiv-8]

He also dropped out of Howard, that loser.

[Matthias]

Pugs,

A strawman is when you argue against a position I do not hold as if I hold that position. You have done this on various ideas of historical analysis, like applying contemporary standards to slavers. I do not hold that position, and I don't know why you are arguing against it like I do. You have built up an argument (strawman) then broke down the strawman, but I actually agree with you, so I don't know why you are doing it.

The subject of my OP was about how historical revisionism meant to whitewash history lives on to this day on the subect of the Civil War and is very powerful and is part of the reason some parts of the population, namely blacks, don't feel like it's a full history that included them. It doesn't in many cases, because of historical revisionism going on for over a century. I already posted a link showing that a plurality of Americans do not agree with you that the Civil War was caused by slavery. This very basic, simple premise as you have said, is not accepted because of successful historical revisionism.

That is the subject. I'm not going beyond that simple premise because a lot of people don't even accept it, so I want to talk about why they don't and what can be done about it.

Your posts have mostly been off-topic, arguing against positions I didn't bring up and don't hold. I can't tell what your point is. You have said over and over slavery caused the Civil War. So do I. Lots of people think it doesn't due to historical revisionism. That is what I'm talking about.

Lots of posters on here disagree with that basic premise as well. They are using the same revisionism that has been used since right after the Civil War. They are doing it as apologetics for southern secession, not for slavery. They do this be brushing slavery under the rug and trying to disconnect secession from slavery. They want southern secession to be about something else, something that will fit their ideology so they can use it as a point of pride for identity or a point of support for their ideas. Or they take pride in being a southerner and don't want to think of their identity in that way. This happens all the time in every society, the convenient whitewashing of history, nothing new. But it's still going on here to quite a degree with this subject.

I think any study of history should go beyond a basic premise, that's not my argument though. I'm saying that historical revisionism, motivated to whitewash the south especially and the north, has changed this simple, factual premise for a plurality of Americans, even as modern historians overwhelmingly realize it was about slavery and have studied the historical revisionism that happened immediatly afterwards. This widespread belief in historical revisionism originally meant to make whites feel comfortable about the war (and that still exists today) is exactly what makes it uncomfortable for blacks to be able to approach it in many situations.

[I WUB PUGS]

Who is being revisionist in this thread? You've called me revisionist and I don't see a strawman when you've categorized my expansions as being revisionist even though they detail the tentacles of slavery.

Your OP holds that we don't even talk about slavery as being part of the Civil War. I along with several other people in this thread have said that this is counter to what we have learned in even basic history classes in Junior High. I've never read anything of merit about the Civil War that didn't have "slavery" as part of it.

I grew up in the South and this was the case there, sure my father who was raised in 1950s and 60s Texas says "It was about States Rights", but lets be fair, those were different times and I don't see that education being used anymore. If it is, well, its probably in Mississippi and nothing can help them anyway.

I've pointed out applying contemporary standards being applied to history because I've felt your overall goal is to paint the Civil War as some sort of conflict against racism when that is indeed purely revisionist. The abolitionists were an extreme minority and primarily lived in one corner of the country. The majority at the time on either side did not think of it as some racial conflict to free the black man of his burdens. So why should it be characterized as such now?

Now again, you say that revisionism is rampant and it covers up the slavery aspect of the war, well everyone has disagreed, everyone here has said they recognize the importance of slavery in the war.

The article you started this thread around has more to do with black people giving a about "their war" than it does white people trying to sanitize it to make them feel better. As a WHITE kid in 1990s public school I had to read about the Underground Railroad, the Slave Trade, how Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves, we watched Roots. Really the list goes on and on, so for an entire generation of Central Florida Students, we were bombarded with the message of slavery being the central focus of the Civil War. In fact it went so far as to impress upon us that the war was ONLY about the slavery, which is wrong, it ignores the absurdity of the politics that strangled this country for decades before the war. Something that I wasn't even taught until my Junior and Senior level courses at University.

I don't think black people give a damn about the Civil War because they don't give a damn about their history in general, even though they have an entire month where they are bombarded, well we are all bombarded by it. And don't tell me "but white people get 11 months" which is because I don't see history programs being broadcast on the networks all year round, they come on the History Channel during the 4th of July and Veterans Day. The Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's have been calling for this for years, they want black people to start caring about who they are and where they came from. Black people don't care, and the the notion of "its whities fault" is thoroughly beaten to a pulp. There isn't some white conspiracy to make black people sell drugs and get pregnant at 13, just like there isn't one in latino communities or every trailer park I've ever seen. The problems aren't unique to the black community, but they make the most headlines specifically because of white guilt over slavery. It is there, people react to it, and plenty feel obligated to pay for it in one way or another.

There is a much deeper problem than "white revisionism" and it exists in the black community. To be fair, maybe black people would learn their history if they made it to Junior High and High School. Half of my elementary school was black. I graduated High School in 2001 with 3 black kids, all of them females. Over 400 kids graduated with me and only 3 were black.

You can't very well learn about your history if you aren't in class to learn it.

Really who is claiming that the war wasn't about slavery? I don't see it in this thread. I don't see it anywhere.

FOR THE PORTION of the country that still honors, or traces its ancestry to, the men who fired on Fort Sumter, and thus brought war, the truthful story of the Civil War tells of a defeat richly deserved, garnered in a pursuit now condemned. For the blameless North, it throws up the failed legacy of appeasement of slaveholders, the craven willingness to bargain on the backs of black people, and the unwillingness, in the Reconstruction years, to finish what the war started.

I don't care about Southerners or any other small section of the country that heralds the Civil War as some glorious fight for "States Rights". We ALL know they suck at education. We can't force them to adapt. The above statement ignores fully what the war was about for the North. The North didn't care about slavery, that's my point, no one but the small minority of abolitionists did. The North was fighting to maintain a Union and in order to get the country back to an actual Union, they caved, they let the south essentially re-institute slavery. So in the peace the North got what it wanted and so did the South. The South did have to give up political power. I think the author is wholly wrong to say the war was about slavery alone, if it were, the NORTH WOULD HAVE MADE IT SO. There were two sides to the conflict and while the South was seceding to keep slavery in place, the North went to war to keep the country together, not to combat slavery.

Lots of posters on here disagree with that basic premise as well. They are using the same revisionism that has been used since right after the Civil War. They are doing it as apologetics for southern secession, not for slavery.

Again. Who? You've spent most of your time in this thread attacking my expansion of slavery as a "strawman". Probably because these phantom apologists are just that.

[caratacus]

To see the American Civil War entirely in terms of a crusade against slavery is to drape it with a patriotic and righteous zeal that disguises the social economic forces at play. Since the time America was colonised by the British there were two seperate poles of development. With the prosperous plantation farmers of the South having more in common with those in the Caribbean than their poorer cousins to the North. With the industrialisation of the North and huge influx of immigrants in the 19th century this division became more marked and the struggle for economic and political supremacy became substantially greater. The abolition of slavery brought cheap labour for the industrialised North and economic disaster for the South. However the lack of plantation owners to instigate labour reforms made slavery the issue it was and central to the War but I'm sure the friction would have occurred anyway owing issues of taxation and political control from Washington.

Wars are very seldom ever fought on the basis of principles and those that say they are, are lying. Money and power are the reason most wars happen. There is nothing principled about killing another human being.

As for the reason that African Americans don't give the Civil War much in the way of attention, is probably because it is painful to think of their forebears as being slaves. Same as the history of Australia as a penal colony isn't the focus of most Australians. Besides, even without slavery Blacks were not treated equally or fairly until the 1960's were they.

[I WUB PUGS]

Besides, even without slavery Blacks were not treated equally or fairly until the 1990's were they.

Fixed.

[Matthias]

Your OP holds that we don't even talk about slavery as being part of the Civil War. I along with several other people in this thread have said that this is counter to what we have learned in even basic history classes in Junior High. I've never read anything of merit about the Civil War that didn't have "slavery" as part of it.

No, my OP is that many people have learned slavery isn't really the cause or a big part of the Civil War, a plurality of Americans. You are engaging in the common fallacy that your experiences somehow override this fact. They don't.

I grew up in the South and this was the case there, sure my father who was raised in 1950s and 60s Texas says "It was about States Rights", but lets be fair, those were different times and I don't see that education being used anymore. If it is, well, its probably in Mississippi and nothing can help them anyway.

I think something can be done about it, I don't think we should just throw up our hands and say "oh well".

I've pointed out applying contemporary standards being applied to history because I've felt your overall goal is to paint the Civil War as some sort of conflict against racism when that is indeed purely revisionist.

It isn't my point at all. This is the strawman you created based on your "feelings". That's a common mistake.

Now again, you say that revisionism is rampant and it covers up the slavery aspect of the war, well everyone has disagreed, everyone here has said they recognize the importance of slavery in the war.

Some posters still claim it was mainly about state's rights. I don't want to name names since that seems to be going away from the point, but you can review the thread yourself. Even then, it's irrelevant. There are many Americans who do believe this is the point.

The article you started this thread around has more to do with black people giving a about "their war" than it does white people trying to sanitize it to make them feel better.

They're related. Historical revisionism that pushed black people into the background will make them not care much about it.

I don't think black people give a damn about the Civil War because they don't give a damn about their history in general, even though they have an entire month where they are bombarded, well we are all bombarded by it.

It's hard to give a damn about history that has excluded you, whitewashed you right out of it, for the comfort of the majority. I have said this is changing with a new generation, and it is, but there is still a very large revisionist contingent out there. The original point of Black History Month was to fight back against this historical revisionism that was the case for decades and decades. You may be rolling your eyes, having grown up with less revisionism, but it's still out there and very powerful. It's why some powerful politician, on the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, gave a speech on it without even mentioning slavery, and no one was surprised.

There is a much deeper problem than "white revisionism" and it exists in the black community. To be fair, maybe black people would learn their history if they made it to Junior High and High School. Half of my elementary school was black. I graduated High School in 2001 with 3 black kids, all of them females. Over 400 kids graduated with me and only 3 were black.

Of course there are deeper problems, but revisionism is part of that as well. To understand why black people are where they are today requires an understanding of history. To say that this is a problem of the black community is buying revisionism pure and simple. It's an American problem, caused by centuries of slavery followed by decades of discrimination and racial ideologies that still exist to this day. I'm not blaming only "whites" or saying that "blacks" have no role to play, but it's not just a black problem at all. It's a problem created by American policies and can only be solved by everyone.

Really who is claiming that the war wasn't about slavery? I don't see it in this thread. I don't see it anywhere.

I won't name names, and I suppose your reading comprehension is very different from mine if you don't see it on this thread, but 45% of Americans believe it was about state's rights, not slavery.

I don't care about Southerners or any other small section of the country that heralds the Civil War as some glorious fight for "States Rights". We ALL know they suck at education. We can't force them to adapt.

Of course you don't, you are pretty privileged by the sound of it. But if you're the one being excluded by this "small section of the country" (it's not, and it's a large contingent that believes this) you might care a bit more (though you should care regardless). Saying that the south sucks at education and won't change is just a pretty poor excuse to not deal with a problem, one you have amply shown to have blown off because you personally don't care.

I think the author is wholly wrong to say the war was about slavery alone, if it were, the NORTH WOULD HAVE MADE IT SO. There were two sides to the conflict and while the South was seceding to keep slavery in place, the North went to war to keep the country together, not to combat slavery.

The author never said what you are arguing against, yet another strawman. Look, you need to brush up on reading comprehension so you are actually arguing against points people make and not ones you make up.

[I WUB PUGS]

You haven't proven any points Matthias. You submitted an article that claims the Civil War has been stolen from black people and given to whites in an effort to whitewash. You keep saying people in this thread are buying into this revisionism and I don't see it, and everyone in here seems to say slavery even when they also say states rights. Everyone here has agreed that the states right in question was slavery.

Where is your proof other than an editorial piece in the Atlantic? I don't know what you read in the article but it is clear that the author is making the point that the war was about slavery and we have whitewashed this to cleanse our hands of it. Which is your point. An editorial piece is an opinion, it is no more valid than my own, and I disagree with his opinion because we have differing backgrounds and experiences on this subject and I think is understanding of the ACW lacks depth.

Prove to me that revisionism is out there in a powerful form. Prove to me that this revisionism is more of a factor in keeping black people from caring about their history than say, I don't know, the pursuit of anything else. Submit something more than an opinion piece. It isn't proof. Its anecdotal.

How does the following not equate to: The war was about slavery but it has been stolen from us and the whiteman made it about his gallant fight for the union!

We knew, of course, about Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman. But our general sense of the war was that a horrible tragedy somehow had the magical effect of getting us free. Its legacy belonged not to us, but to those who reveled in the costume and technology of a time when we were property.

Our alienation was neither achieved in independence, nor stumbled upon by accident, but produced by American design. The belief that the Civil War wasn’t for us was the result of the country’s long search for a narrative that could reconcile white people with each other, one that avoided what professional historians now know to be true: that one group of Americans attempted to raise a country wholly premised on property in Negroes, and that another group of Americans, including many Negroes, stopped them. In the popular mind, that demonstrable truth has been evaded in favor of a more comforting story of tragedy, failed compromise, and individual gallantry. For that more ennobling narrative, as for so much of American history, the fact of black people is a problem.

The author's sole point is to bring it back to slavery and to expose the whitewash for what it is? What strawman is this? I say he's full of crap because it wasn't just about slavery because HE is ignoring decades of political turmoil in favor of his own POV. Decades of political strife that I have pointed out repeatedly.

When you can even submit an actual point of argument and point out actual revisionism, we can talk about these "points" you want to. Until then I can only interpret. You could start by pointing out revisionism in this thread. You've tried to paint me as a revisionist when I first started talking about the larger impact of slavery, this only showed your lack of knowledge on the subject of the Civil War. Who else is a revisionist in this thread? You thought it was me, but you were wrong. Perhaps you'd like to point another out or are you worried you won't be able to defend that attack either?

Also how is "this is a black community problem" revisionism at all? How many institutions do we have in place to help them? What more must the country do? At what point do they have to pick up their end? I'm not even talking about some half century of history. The author and I agree that it began to fall apart in the 1980s with crack and aids epidemics. But really, what else doe s the US have to do? I'll not deny we have tons of racists, and its systemic in some parts, but don't say we aren't doing plenty. The biggest complaint from the black community in recent years is from the black community about how they need to help themselves and stop killing themselves.

The author may be successfully attacking ignorant "revisionists" for crying "states rights" while ignoring slavery. I say the author is ignorant and partisan for crying "slavery" while ignoring decades of "states rights" issues.

[Col. Tartleton]

To see the American Civil War entirely in terms of a crusade against slavery is to drape it with a patriotic and righteous zeal that disguises the social economic forces at play. Since the time America was colonised by the British there were two seperate poles of development. With the prosperous plantation farmers of the South having more in common with those in the Caribbean than their poorer cousins to the North. With the industrialisation of the North and huge influx of immigrants in the 19th century this division became more marked and the struggle for economic and political supremacy became substantially greater. The abolition of slavery brought cheap labour for the industrialised North and economic disaster for the South. However the lack of plantation owners to instigate labour reforms made slavery the issue it was and central to the War but I'm sure the friction would have occurred anyway owing issues of taxation and political control from Washington.

I mean we spun it into a crusade back during the first half of the 20th century, but that was to get people fired up to fight Nazis and Communists. After all, the Nazis and Japanese were slavers and the Communists were in our opinion little better than slaves in their system. So in opposition to them it's important to bend the facts a little. Lincoln did free the slaves, a little fudging on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Emancipation Proclamation and you'd think fighting slavery was always a universal American value.

Wars are very seldom ever fought on the basis of principles and those that say they are, are lying. Money and power are the reason most wars happen. There is nothing principled about killing another human being.

Well, if you kill to protect others you might, but ultimately that's a defensive effort.

As for the reason that African Americans don't give the Civil War much in the way of attention, is probably because it is painful to think of their forebears as being slaves. Same as the history of Australia as a penal colony isn't the focus of most Australians. Besides, even without slavery Blacks were not treated equally or fairly until the 1960's were they.

I don't know, I'd reckon the majority of our white people ancestors were serfs unless our ancestors were nobles. A serf has some rights, but they're still so restricted they may as well be slaves. Russia emancipated in 1861. Most Russians are going to be descended from serfs. I know the Black Left had some sympathy for the Russian Left, but I suspect that was more common politics than racial solidarity.

Fixed.

Yep. Probably just after the crack epidemic ended.

[Matthias]

Prove to me that revisionism is out there in a powerful form. Prove to me that this revisionism is more of a factor in keeping black people from caring about their history than say, I don't know, the pursuit of anything else. Submit something more than an opinion piece. It isn't proof. Its anecdotal.

From earlier in the thread:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Your experience, however, is not indicative of the subject in general.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1958/civ...e-leaders-flag

A plurality of Americans still think the war was over "state's rights", even though modern historians almost unanimously say it was about slavery.

It's not a contradiction to say that the underlying cause of the Civil War was slavery and that the Union was trying to preserve itself because the issue of slavery had torn it apart. I'm talking about the still very largely followed idea, especially in the south, that "state's rights" in general (not on the specific topic of slavery) was the main reason for war, or the common mistake of taking soldier's personal motivations for fighting as the main reason behind the war (which is rarely the case in any war), or tariffs, or "cultural differences", etc. etc. Older historians used to say all this, and modern historians are still fighting this whitewashed history.

Some discussion on this:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/milit...war_04-12.html

If you read the article, you'll see exactly what I mean, as it is put well. But generally, that the ACW wasn't really about slavery, but about "state's rights", tariffs, industrializtion, etc. etc. (I've heard all sorts of excuses from apologists). What's frightening is how far spread these views are among the public.

Here's a nice little blurb on some of the vast revisionist history out there (much of it is older, but you'll note it still holds in the mind of the public today)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/pearlston1.html

Notice what the revisionist author says about the war:

... the Civil war was not just a great national American tragedy, but even more so, a tragedy for civilization .... In 1861, the world's first great democracy, which was going to show the world what great benefits and virtue this new form of government could bring, failed miserably, tragically, and horribly."

Yet, it's hard to see how a war that led to the abolition of slavery is a tragedy from a historical perspective, or how the government "failed miserably" simply because it quashed a rebellion to preserve (and even expand) slavery. This perspective obviously will be offensive to many African Americans, much less white Americans with some sophistication.

So your contention is the vast majority of Americans think it was about slavery? Because the evidence points against that.

I say he's full of crap because it wasn't just about slavery because HE is ignoring decades of political turmoil in favor of his own POV. Decades of political strife that I have pointed out repeatedly.

I have no idea what your point is here. Decades of political strife doesn't make it any less about slavery. Slavery was a huge issue since the colonies were started.

You've tried to paint me as a revisionist when I first started talking about the larger impact of slavery, this only showed your lack of knowledge on the subject of the Civil War.

Not sure where I painted you as a revisionist, unless you were using the usual talking points, you'll have to point out where I said it.

Also how is "this is a black community problem" revisionism at all? How many institutions do we have in place to help them? What more must the country do? At what point do they have to pick up their end? I'm not even talking about some half century of history.

Because it's not a "black community problem", it is a problem created by everyone and only solveable by everyone. What specific policy prescriptions will solve the gap betwen blacks and the rest is open for debate, but the reason they are where they are is not. Historical fact points out why they are where they are, and it's because of slavery and then racial oppression and discrimination. It's the reason America is so segregated, why there are still ghettos of all black people in most every major urban area. You know, American policies like allowing whites opportunities at home ownership while denying it to blacks leading to the suburbs, laws that supported segregation, etc. etc.

And now that racist sentiments no longer exist as much doesn't mean that that history hasn't put them at a huge disadvantage. Blacks have started off, as a group, in much higher proportions of concentrated poverty due to this history, and the cycle of poverty is well known to be hard to get out of.

[I WUB PUGS]

So your contention is the vast majority of Americans think it was about slavery? Because the evidence points against that.

I'd be curious to know if the Pew Poll even bothered to go further and press people about what right was in question. Most of the people in that poll that were college educated were against Pro-Confederate Politicians and barely any of them responded to the Confederate Flag with sympathy. Which would lend itself to the opinion that the flag and the CSA in general were symbols of bigotry.

The majority of under-30s view the war as a war about "States Rights" and if they've been taught the way I was, then it was about States Rights, but about the right to slavery in the states. Which:

Not sure where I painted you as a revisionist, unless you were using the usual talking points, you'll have to point out where I said it.

You repeatedly painted as "revisionist" in post 30.
Which when taken with the PBS article, would point to my train of thought since Historians are now teaching a much more truthful form of the war than they were 50 years ago. 65+ year olds view the war as more about slavery than under-30s do? Doesn't jive with the trends in historiography. Perhaps the definition of "States Rights" has correctly morphed into one that includes "Slavery".

I have no idea what your point is here. Decades of political strife doesn't make it any less about slavery. Slavery was a huge issue since the colonies were started.

I'm attacking your OP article author for not giving the Anti-Federalist vs Federalist battle any credence. And I don't know what you mean by "huge". Even at the outbreak of the war the abolitionist movement was nothing more than an extremely vocal but tiny New England minority.

And now that racist sentiments no longer exist as much doesn't mean that that history hasn't put them at a huge disadvantage. Blacks have started off, as a group, in much higher proportions of concentrated poverty due to this history, and the cycle of poverty is well known to be hard to get out of.

Okay, doesn't remove the fact that the US has been actively trying to pry them out of poverty for decades. They have access to the same AND MORE services than white people do. Society cannot make a person take advantage of the services available, we can only make them available and they are!

[Cyclops]

Is it fair to say that slavery was the elephant in the room, and states rights included the right to be a slaveholding state?

I think the particular state right in question was slavery. What else got changed?

[Hanny]

Is it fair to say that slavery was the elephant in the room, and states rights included the right to be a slaveholding state?

Under the Constitution slavery exists over the entire union, and no state or Congress can put a geographical limit to slavery in a state or Terr of that Union. The Elephant in the room was the Republicans refusal to govern acording to the Constitution as it was.

I think the particular state right in question was slavery. What else got changed?

What changed was the first political party in US History, the Republicans, came to power, to be both against Sates being sov with any right that they do not gain from membership of the Union, ( Republican party doctrine was secession was treason and would be treated as such) and was against the extension of slavery outside where it al;ready existed.

[Roma_Victrix]

Your OP holds that we don't even talk about slavery as being part of the Civil War. I along with several other people in this thread have said that this is counter to what we have learned in even basic history classes in Junior High. I've never read anything of merit about the Civil War that didn't have "slavery" as part of it...

The article you started this thread around has more to do with black people giving a about "their war" than it does white people trying to sanitize it to make them feel better. As a WHITE kid in 1990s public school I had to read about the Underground Railroad, the Slave Trade, how Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves, we watched Roots. Really the list goes on and on, so for an entire generation of Central Florida Students, we were bombarded with the message of slavery being the central focus of the Civil War. In fact it went so far as to impress upon us that the war was ONLY about the slavery, which is wrong, it ignores the absurdity of the politics that strangled this country for decades before the war. Something that I wasn't even taught until my Junior and Senior level courses at University.

I'm a Californian by birth, but I went to junior high in Kentucky and then finished in Virginia not long after you and graduated from high school in 2004 (again, not long after you). In my personal experience from the education I received in these southern states, I can only concur that the emphasis was on slavery being the main cause for the war. My college courses (in northern Virginia) only reinforced this idea.

So how is it that "45%" of the country as Matthias stated believes it was only states rights? Is it a patriotic Confederate tale told at home by their fathers that overrides these southern kids' education? Are there certain schools in the south where teachers actually ignore slavery and say secession was only about states rights in general? If so, where do these schools exist? Wouldn't they make the evening news or something? Matthias is correct though about the percentage of Americans who believe it was about states rights (I remember reading a little while ago about a Pew Research Center Poll that confirmed this). Kids are also taught about evolution in biology classes, but some go home and are spun a different story by their evangelical parents that we are not descended from lesser primates, and that the world and universe around it is about 5,000 years old, and not in the ballpark of 6 billion. Who are you going to believe? Mommy and daddy? Or that uppity know-it-all teacher?

That "powerful politician" Matthias pointed out as not mentioning slavery as the central issue of the Civil War on its 150th anniversary was widely lampooned for not doing so, if I remember correctly. Or at least this was the case in the so-called "liberal media".

[Cyclops]

Under the Constitution slavery exists over the entire union, and no state or Congress can put a geographical limit to slavery in a state or Terr of that Union. The Elephant in the room was the Republicans refusal to govern acording to the Constitution as it was..

Yeah so the war was about slavery.

...What changed was the first political party in US History, the Republicans, came to power, to be both against Sates being sov with any right that they do not gain from membership of the Union, ( Republican party doctrine was secession was treason and would be treated as such) and was against the extension of slavery outside where it al;ready existed.

Do you mean they were the first party in US history to be against states rights?

Aside from the (disputed) question of the illegality of succesion, what changes did the Union make in Slave states?

IIRC they set up Republican-stacked electoral colleges and legislatures, but aside from outlawing slavery they didn't change anything else. Is that right?

[motiv-8]

Under the Constitution slavery exists over the entire union,

No, there is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that says that. At all.

and no state or Congress can put a geographical limit to slavery in a state or Terr of that Union.

Except all the States which outlawed slavery. Nevermind that the Constitution has absolutely no article which says that a State must or must not condone the institution of slavery.

[Hanny]

Yeah so the war was about slavery.

incorrect.

Do you mean they were the first party in US history to be against states rights?

I was explicit.

Aside from the (disputed) question of the illegality of succesion, what changes did the Union make in Slave states?

there was no dispute, there was no law against it, it was how the Sates left the Union with the Crown in 1643, 1776 and again to leave the AoC.

IIRC they set up Republican-stacked electoral colleges and legislatures, but aside from outlawing slavery they didn't change anything else. Is that right?

They denied that states were sov, so could no excercise the right of a sov, one of which is secession.

[Hanny]

No, there is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that says that. At all.

Fact free, USSC said it did.

Except all the States which outlawed slavery. Nevermind that the Constitution has absolutely no article which says that a State must or must not condone the institution of slavery.

Fact free. Slave ownership is a right of a citizen of the Union, ( Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.)the article that grants that right to a citizen of one state, if it exists in another states means slavery cannot be limited, as it is unlimited under the Constitution. Secondly, slave ownership is property ownership, and a contract between owners and prop[erty, and is protected again over the entire Union Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

So still posting about that which you know nothing.

[motiv-8]

Fact Free Hanny, Fact Free. In fact we have only a couple SCOTUS decisions on slavery throughout the first half of the 19th Century, none of which do what you purport or even come close until the Dredd Scott decision, which itself was one of the major factors in sparking the political crisis of 1860 and the war. Instead we have rulings such as Slader vs. Graham which said that the status of slaves depended on the laws of a particular state, which by itself already blows away this whole concept of "what is in one state must be in an another" -- because that's nonsense, and even using simple logic one would know it's nonsense because it destroys the idea of individual states rights and state sovereignty.

In fact it's so interesting watching your hammer on with your southern apologism and ramble about the tyranny of Republicans and the federal government, when in fact the interaction between the Supreme Court and the states was of the former trying to interfere with latters' rights and impose the will of the federal government upon them, up until Dredd Scott in 1856 which really was one of the key factors in the ascendancy of the Republicans in 1860. Talk about selective outrage.

[Hanny]

Gordon v. United States (1864), 117 U S. 697

"The reservation to the States respectively," says the Supreme Court, "can only mean the reservation of the Sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which they had not parted from by that instrument. And ANY legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power designated would be trespassing upon the rights of the States or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null and void."

Here USSC grants States are sov, which means they have a right to secede.

The 14 contains the provision to remove the right to have slaves, and extened slave ownwership across the Union, as slaves had become free citizens in the 13th, the 14 made it clear that no state can use prior amendmdnts to return them to slavery, using teh same rights and privalges that originaly existed to extend slavery over the whole Union.
Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. 119
119 Provisions of this kind were in the colonial charters. The colonists of Virginia, for example, who received (1606) the first charter from the English sovereign, were by that writing guaranteed "all liberties, franchises and immunities within any of our dominions to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within this our realm of England."

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union," ran the Articles of Confederation, "the free inhabitants of each of these States (paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted) shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States."

A citizen of one State going to or transacting business in another is entitled in the latter State to the privileges and immunities enjoyed by its citizens. The State cannot legislate against him or otherwise disfavor him. The intent was that the citizen of one State should not be an alien in another. In any State he has the protection of the government of that State, the enjoyment of life and liberty with the right to acquire and possess property, the right to pursue and obtain happiness, to institute actions in court, and generally to possess what the citizen of the State possesses. Numerous cases have arisen under this clause where States have attempted to favor their own citizens to the prejudice of the citizens of other States. Such laws are void for conflict with this clause.

After the Negro was emancipated there was adopted the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), one of the provisions of which172 is that "no State shall . . . abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Thus, putting the two clauses together, the State is forbidden to abridge the privileges and immunities of (1) the citizen of another State, and of (2) the citizen of the United States. For there are two citizenships and two loyalties. c88

A State cannot take away the right of citizens of other States to sue in the Federal courts of that State. This clause was held not to warrant an act of Congress prescribing punishment of persons for conspiring to deprive others (liberated Negroes) of equal privileges or immunities, as the guaranty of the Constitution is against wrongs done by States and not by persons. Wrongs done in a State by persons must be dealt with by the State in the exercise of its police power, and not by the Nation.c18

So still posting about that which you know nothing.

[motiv-8]

Here USSC grants States are sov, which means they have a right to secede.

No, that's you reading into something which was never said by the court in that decision. This is literally the epitome of "fact free" for it is not a fact at all, it is you giving your opinion and projecting it back almost a century and a half into history. On the other hand the Court stated in no uncertain terms in Texas vs. White that:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

It's just about time you stop telling other people they don't know anything about the topic.