In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

You're forgetting at least two states. There were 34
in 1861, but 18+11+3 = 32

The other states did not get involved. There were 18 Union States and 11
Confederate States. California and Oregon wanted nothing to do with the
issue or the conflict. The four border states did not secede.

They were involved to the extent that they supported the Union cause
financially and politically.

You previously claimed that "slavery was not threatened" because the free
states could not get the needed 2/3 majority. I showed that was simply not true
- it would have taken 23 states of the 34.

It's not a coincidence that 11 states (34-23=11) seceded.

But slavery *was* threatened, because the trend was
clear to see. As the West and Midwest developed, more
and more free states would be added. (snip)

The trend was not so clear. Certainly some of the Midwest states,
dependant on farming, would want slaves.

Not at all! Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois...all farming states
back then, all free.

The simple fact was that more free states than slave states were being
admitted, and that as time went on the days of slavery were numbered - unless
the Union were broken.

Then what *was* the South fighting for? What rights did
the 11 states cherish so greatly that they would secede and
fight a war to keep them?

You're looking for an easy answer to a very complex question.

I'm looking for the facts. Some of those facts may not be things anyone today
is proud of. I'm not proud that the founders could "proclaim liberty" and say
"all men are created equal" and then allow slavery to exist in their country.

I suspect
there were as many reason for the conflict as their were people involved.

I'm looking for the facts.

Some of the roots of the Civil War dates back to the Revolutionary War
nearly a century earlier, where many Southerners did not want to break with
England, sided with England during the conflict, and were persecuted for
that afterwards. Others objected to the taxes and tarrifs on farm goods
heading overseas, seeing that as similar to what the North objected to
leading up to the Revolutionary War and reducing profits from their primary
markets.

The Constitution forbid tariffs and taxes on exports. Only imports could be
taxed or tarriffed. This was obvious economic protectionism.

Others saw the attempts for fix market prices on farm goods by
Northern firms as a threat to free markets (and were angry the government
did nothing to stop the practice).

In very broad terms, the problem was that the North industrialized and the
South stayed agrarian. The North rejected slavery in favor of immigration,
while the South allowed slavery to grow to the extent that by 1860 in at least
two states the number of slaves exceeded the number of free people.

Others objected to what they saw as
efforts by Northern States to limit the political influence of the Southern
States.

That game was played both ways. The original Constitution counted 60% of the
slave population when allocating seats in the House of Representatives - but no
slaves were allowed to vote! So the slave states had a built-in political
advantage over the North, based on the illogical and immoral idea that a slave
was not a human being when it came to rights, but *was* a human being - or
rather 60% of a human being - when it came time to determine the political
population.

Was that fair in any way?

The list goes on and on (and I certainly don't have the time to go
on and on here).

The point is simple: Slavery was at the bottom of all those causes. It was the
root cause of the differences in economy, politics and culture that caused 11
states to secede.

No argument there - but where were most of the slaves?
In the Confederate states!

Only if you ignore indentured, bound, or apprentice, workers in the North.

Those were not slaves.

These were people purchased at slave auctions (blacks), or from poor
families (whites), and given contracts to work for years in Northern
factories to hopefully earn their eventual freedom.

They had *contracts* - BIG difference!

Which is completely different from being enslaved *forever*, together with all
of your children. Most indentured servants worked out their contracts and
became free. Most slaves never did.

Indentured and bound workers were (for the most part) working off debts. It was
common practice for poor European immigrants to indenture themselves for 7
years to pay for their transatlantic passage. After that 7 years, they were
free.

Apprentices traded their labor for education, working a set number of years in
order to learn a skilled trade.

In most cases those workers entered into the contract *voluntarily*. And the
contract had a definite time limit.

Those contracts were valid because both parties got something of value.

Slaves, on the other hand, were simply *stolen* from their homes by raiders and
shipped off. They received *nothing* for their work and had no choice in the
matter. There was no limit on their service.

Ben Franklin and his
maternal grandmother were both once apprentice workers.

Were they dragged from their homes in chains and sent thousands of miles away,
to work the rest of their lives in a strange place with little hope of freedom?
Or was it a voluntary, temporary agreement for economic and educational
reasons?

She married the man
who held her contract.

How many slaves did that?

Ben Franklin escaped to Philadelphia (breaking his
contract and the laws).

Yep - he stole a few years labor from the man who held the contract. I
understand that later on he paid off the contract.

The only differences between this and outright
slavery were the legal papers and the idea of possible freedom some day.

WRONG!

There's also the fact that the apprentices were not stolen from their homes and
dragged away against their will.

Of
course, because of the working conditions, few ever lived long enough to be
free. This practice continued long after slavery was abolished.

That's simply not true. Most indentured servants worked out their 7 years and
were freed.

In fact, indentured servants were used widely in the colonies before the
revolution, but in the South the practice became unpopular because the
plantation owners were always having to buy new contracts and the now freed
indentured servants were setting up their own plantations using skills and
knowledge learned while indentured.

We still have contract labor today. Actors, athletes and executives, to name a
few, sign contracts where they agree to work for a certain period of time and
receive certain benefits. Both sides are legally bound by the contract.

To equate the immoral horror of slavery with contract labor is simply not valid
in any way.