How Much of the Civil War was About Slavery?

[there4eyeM]

Where did these people get this revisionist secessionist propaganda that they so precisely repeat? Is this taught in schools somewhere? It is so similar in tone and predictability to the 'holocaust' situation that one might think they were of the same cloth.
And, of course, there is never any end to the 'debate' because all participants have already decided and nothing the opposition can say would change a mind.
Just for fun, however, I will repeat that the original organization of the country was for a 'Perpetual Union', and that quality of the United part of the States was never formally renounced. There is no document, no court decision that states otherwise. The Union is Perpetual.
Now, watch the formulaic attack on this and the total lack of references to dispute it.

 

[konradv]

The new CSA Constitution itself did not give the CSA states the right to secede but did the CSA Constitution preamble?

Don't know why that would matter; it has nothing to do with Lincoln's deliberately starting the war.

He didn't deliberately start the war. He tried all sorts of legislative actions to avoid war, including a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have preserved slavery.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Picaro]

The new CSA Constitution itself did not give the CSA states the right to secede but did the CSA Constitution preamble?

Don't know why that would matter; it has nothing to do with Lincoln's deliberately starting the war.

He didn't deliberately start the war. He tried all sorts of legislative actions to avoid war, including a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have preserved slavery.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

He went against almost his entire Cabinet in reinforcing Sumter. Yes, he was deliberately provoking a war. As for spinning history to fit some modern agenda or other, this quote sums up my view on it:

And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take Prozac. It was said in Ecclesiastes and it still is true today, people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us. History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive, selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play? -Dave WIlliams, George Mason Univ.

The fantasy that Lincoln and the Republicans were fighting some moral crusade is nonsense, and pointing that out is necessary if the study of history is to have any value or usefulness as an objective academic discipline. Whether or not it gets used by propagandists is on the propagandists; the entire history should be available and known; then the assorted cranks, snivelers, soapboxers, whatever can distort all they want. As long as the entire era is correctly documented, the tougher it is to lie about. I put the Lincoln Myth in the same category as I put the 'FDR was a Stalinist agent' gibberish PC routinely posts.

I also fail to see why it is just so important to ignore the white supremacy rampant in the North as part of the national debate on minority rights; doing so does a lot more harm than good, and it is dishonest to spin it as something it wasn't. Black people weren't 'freed' by the Civil War in any real sense that mattered. So what if some modern racists use those arguments? The political leans of those citing history doesn't make the history itself invalid just because some propagandists can cherry pick it and and throw it around as some sort of talking point. The total picture is what is important, and what is necessary to counter spin and hubris. Sniveling about something and claiming it is or isn't historically true based on a personal left or right political bias doesn't need to be inflicted on schools and universities.

Blame Lincoln's and his cronies' white supremacist platforms and his dictatorship for giving them the ammo in the first place. If somebody was to cite a Nazi arithmetic schoolbook citing '2+2=4', should we toss arithmetic out as a subject as promoting Nazism? Change arithmetic to mean '2+2=15.87, in order to remove the Hitleresque implications from it as a subject and its racist past?

 

[konradv]

The new CSA Constitution itself did not give the CSA states the right to secede but did the CSA Constitution preamble?

Don't know why that would matter; it has nothing to do with Lincoln's deliberately starting the war.

He didn't deliberately start the war. He tried all sorts of legislative actions to avoid war, including a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have preserved slavery.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

He went against almost his entire Cabinet in reinforcing Sumter. Yes, he was deliberately provoking a war. As for spinning history to fit some modern agenda or other, this quote sums up my view on it:

And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take Prozac. It was said in Ecclesiastes and it still is true today, people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us. History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive, selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play? -Dave WIlliams, George Mason Univ.

The fantasy that Lincoln and the Republicans were fighting some moral crusade is nonsense, and pointing that out is necessary if the study of history is to have any value or usefulness as an objective academic discipline. Whether or not it gets used by propagandists is on the propagandists; the entire history should be available and known; then the assorted cranks, snivelers, soapboxers, whatever can distort all they want. As long as the entire era is correctly documented, the tougher it is to lie about. I put the Lincoln Myth in the same category as I put the 'FDR was a Stalinist agent' gibberish PC routinely posts.

I also fail to see why it is just so important to ignore the white supremacy rampant in the North as part of the national debate on minority rights; doing so does a lot more harm than good, and it is dishonest to spin it as something it wasn't. Black people weren't 'freed' by the Civil War in any real sense that mattered. So what if some modern racists use those arguments? The political leans of those citing history doesn't make the history itself invalid just because some propagandists can cherry pick it and and throw it around as some sort of talking point. The total picture is what is important, and what is necessary to counter spin and hubris. Sniveling about something and claiming it is or isn't historically true based on a personal left or right political bias. Blame Lincoln's and his cronies' white supremacist platforms for giving them the ammo in the first place.

Regardless, the war WAS about slavery and nothing you've said disproves that. The North may have been racist too, but slavery was still a flash point because free farmers didn't want to be out-competed by big planters with cheap slave labor. Your argument attacks Lincoln's legacy, but doesn't really address the reasons for the war. Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, he was a free-soiler and that WAS about slavery.

 

[Picaro]

The new CSA Constitution itself did not give the CSA states the right to secede but did the CSA Constitution preamble?

Don't know why that would matter; it has nothing to do with Lincoln's deliberately starting the war.

He didn't deliberately start the war. He tried all sorts of legislative actions to avoid war, including a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have preserved slavery.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

He went against almost his entire Cabinet in reinforcing Sumter. Yes, he was deliberately provoking a war. As for spinning history to fit some modern agenda or other, this quote sums up my view on it:

And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take Prozac. It was said in Ecclesiastes and it still is true today, people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us. History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive, selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play? -Dave WIlliams, George Mason Univ.

The fantasy that Lincoln and the Republicans were fighting some moral crusade is nonsense, and pointing that out is necessary if the study of history is to have any value or usefulness as an objective academic discipline. Whether or not it gets used by propagandists is on the propagandists; the entire history should be available and known; then the assorted cranks, snivelers, soapboxers, whatever can distort all they want. As long as the entire era is correctly documented, the tougher it is to lie about. I put the Lincoln Myth in the same category as I put the 'FDR was a Stalinist agent' gibberish PC routinely posts.

I also fail to see why it is just so important to ignore the white supremacy rampant in the North as part of the national debate on minority rights; doing so does a lot more harm than good, and it is dishonest to spin it as something it wasn't. Black people weren't 'freed' by the Civil War in any real sense that mattered. So what if some modern racists use those arguments? The political leans of those citing history doesn't make the history itself invalid just because some propagandists can cherry pick it and and throw it around as some sort of talking point. The total picture is what is important, and what is necessary to counter spin and hubris. Sniveling about something and claiming it is or isn't historically true based on a personal left or right political bias. Blame Lincoln's and his cronies' white supremacist platforms for giving them the ammo in the first place.

Regardless, the war WAS about slavery and nothing you've said disproves that. The North may have been racist too, but slavery was still a flash point because free farmers didn't want to be out-competed by big planters with cheap slave labor. Your argument attacks Lincoln's legacy, but doesn't really address the reasons for the war. Lincoln wasn't abolitionist, he was a free-soiler and that WAS about slavery.

If being wrong makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, go ahead and be wrong. Doesn't matter, since it's clear it was the secession Lincoln didn't like, not slavery, and no case at all can be made for the fantasy that secession was illegal or considered to be illegal, from the Constitutional Convention to 1860.

Have you tried Prozac?

 

[Picaro]

Regardless, the war WAS about slavery and nothing you've said disproves that. The North may have been racist too, but slavery was still a flash point because free farmers didn't want to be out-competed by big planters with cheap slave labor.

Free farmers outside the South weren't in any danger of the Southern system spreading, so that wasn't an issue either. See Daniel Webster on that, and Walter Prescott Webb's chapters on the Cotton Kingdom and Cattle Kingdom in his The Great Plains on why it wasn't going to spread. The Southern system had already reached its natural boundaries by 1850, and wasn't going any further north or further west than east Texas. Geography and climate settled that issue long before the war. Webster knew this, Jefferson Davis knew this, Lincoln knew this, anybody familiar with American geography knew this. The 1860 census found 11 slaves in the entire Kansas-Nebraska territory. That's why Webster considered the expansion of slavery to the new territories a dead issue in the battles over the Wilmot Proviso and not worth the effort to oppose slavery, and Polk didn't care whether or not slavery was to be allowed in Oregon.

And yes, the northern opposition was against any black people at all being allowed into the new territories, slave or free, or even more blacks being allowed to move into existing states; they strengthened their Black Codes before the Republican Party even exited. Lincoln participated in writing and passing legislation in Illinois that made it literally impossible for a black person to make a legal living in his state. So much for that argument. Farming in the plains was already well along in mechanization; slavery wasn't feasible there and never would be. The terrain and crop dictated the limits of profitability of slaves.

Your argument attacks Lincoln's legacy, but doesn't really address the reasons for the war. Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, he was a free-soiler and that WAS about slavery.

Lincoln was a railroad lawyer, not a farmer, and he wanted federal subsidies for railroads, and free land to augment their customer base as well as given to railroads themselves, and massive protectionist tariffs for northern manufacturers. That's why the only issues he wouldn't compromise on was the tariffs and the federal subsidies to financial speculators. The Illinois Central railroad was his politics, as railroads were for the first Republican Presidential candidate John Fremont, for Seward, for Chase, all the founders of the Party. Anybody who doubts this can easily look up what Bills were passed in Congress after the secessions first, and where the slavery issue stood in the line.

 

[konradv]

Regardless, the war WAS about slavery and nothing you've said disproves that. The North may have been racist too, but slavery was still a flash point because free farmers didn't want to be out-competed by big planters with cheap slave labor.

Free farmers outside the South weren't in any danger of the Southern system spreading, so that wasn't an issue either. See Daniel Webster on that, and Walter Prescott Webb's chapters on the Cotton Kingdom and Cattle Kingdom in his The Great Plains on why it wasn't going to spread. The Southern system had already reached its natural boundaries by 1850, and wasn't going any further north or further than east Texas. Geography and climate settled that issue long before the war. Webster knew this, Jefferson Davis knew this, Lincoln knew this, anybody familiar with American geography knew this. The 1860 census found 11 slaves in the entire Kansas-Nebraska territory. That's why Webster considered the expansion of slavery to the new territories a dead issue in the battles over the Wilmot Proviso and not worth the effort to oppose slavery, and Polk didn't care whether or not slavery was to be allowed in Oregon. And yes, the northern opposition was against any black people at all being allowed into the new territories, slave or free, or even more blacks being allowed to move into existing states; they strengthened their Black Codes before the Republican Party even exited. Lincoln participated in writing and passing legislation in Illinois that made it literally impossible for a black person to make a legal living in his state. So much for that argument. Farming in the plains was already well along in mechanization; slavery wasn't feasable there and never would be.

Your argument attacks Lincoln's legacy, but doesn't really address the reasons for the war. Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, he was a free-soiler and that WAS about slavery.

Lincoln was a railroad lawyer, not a farmer, and he wanted federal subsidies for railroads, and free land to augment their customer base as well as given to railroads themselves, and massive protectionist tariffs for northern manufacturers. That's why the only issues he wouldn't compromise on was the tariffs and the federal subsidies to financial speculators. The Illinois Central railroad was his politics, as railroads were for the first Republican Presidential candidate John Fremont, for Seward, for Chase, all the founders of the Party.

Sure free farmers were in danger. The Dred Scott decision had effectively turned the entire country into slave-holding territory. Also, Lincoln may not have been a farmer at the time, but he had been one in the past and the party he joined had free-soil as a major part of their agenda. So, once again, I don't see how you can make the case that slavery wasn't the major cause of the war. The South was afraid that free-soil would morph into abolition and that's why they seceded.

 

[Syriusly]

Except that the Northern States did believe that secession was illegal-

Pure nonsense; if that were the case Lincoln wouldn't have suspended the writ of habeas corpus all over the northern states, send loyal troops into northern states to control elections and arrest politicians who opposed his 'platform', have federal troops arresting voters who attempted to vote against Republican candidates, deport Ohio politicians for the crime of speaking out against the war, use federal troops to seize and shut down opposition newspapers, and conduct elections with federal troops controlling the ballot boxes and denying those suspected of 'disloyalty' the right to vote at all. All this without any input from any other branch of government, all illegal.

Not nonsense- the sentiment in the Northern States was that secession was illegal. Of course there were dissenters- but remember- your opinion that secession was legal is merely your opinion.

Meanwhile, the facts are- the Southern slave states seceded to protect their right to own human property- and then attacked American troops, starting the worse war in American history.

And that resulted in the freeing of all slaves.

 

[Syriusly]

The new CSA Constitution itself did not give the CSA states the right to secede but did the CSA Constitution preamble?

Don't know why that would matter; it has nothing to do with Lincoln's deliberately starting the war.

He didn't deliberately start the war. He tried all sorts of legislative actions to avoid war, including a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have preserved slavery.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

He went against almost his entire Cabinet in reinforcing Sumter. Yes, he was deliberately provoking a war. As for spinning history to fit some modern agenda or other, this quote sums up my view on it:

And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take Prozac. It was said in Ecclesiastes and it still is true today, people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us. History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive, selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play? -Dave WIlliams, George Mason Univ.

The fantasy that Lincoln and the Republicans were fighting some moral crusade is nonsense, and pointing that out is necessary if the study of history is to have any value or usefulness as an objective academic discipline. Whether or not it gets used by propagandists is on the propagandists; the entire history should be available and known; then the assorted cranks, snivelers, soapboxers, whatever can distort all they want. As long as the entire era is correctly documented, the tougher it is to lie about. I put the Lincoln Myth in the same category as I put the 'FDR was a Stalinist agent' gibberish PC routinely posts.

I also fail to see why it is just so important to ignore the white supremacy rampant in the North as part of the national debate on minority rights; doing so does a lot more harm than good, and it is dishonest to spin it as something it wasn't. Black people weren't 'freed' by the Civil War in any real sense that mattered. So what if some modern racists use those arguments? The political leans of those citing history doesn't make the history itself invalid just because some propagandists can cherry pick it and and throw it around as some sort of talking point. The total picture is what is important, and what is necessary to counter spin and hubris. Sniveling about something and claiming it is or isn't historically true based on a personal left or right political bias. Blame Lincoln's and his cronies' white supremacist platforms for giving them the ammo in the first place.

Regardless, the war WAS about slavery and nothing you've said disproves that. The North may have been racist too, but slavery was still a flash point because free farmers didn't want to be out-competed by big planters with cheap slave labor. Your argument attacks Lincoln's legacy, but doesn't really address the reasons for the war. Lincoln wasn't abolitionist, he was a free-soiler and that WAS about slavery.

If being wrong makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, go ahead and be wrong. Doesn't matter, since it's clear it was the secession Lincoln didn't like, not slavery, and no case at all can be made for the fantasy that secession was illegal or considered to be illegal, from the Constitutional Convention to 1860.

Have you tried Prozac?

Actually Lincoln was very clear he did not 'like' slavery- he just wasn't willing to go to war over slavery- or see the nation split over slavery.

However, the South loved slavery- and went to war to protect slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

The new CSA Constitution itself did not give the CSA states the right to secede but did the CSA Constitution preamble?

Don't know why that would matter; it has nothing to do with Lincoln's deliberately starting the war.

He didn't deliberately start the war. He tried all sorts of legislative actions to avoid war, including a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have preserved slavery.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Black people weren't 'freed' by the Civil War in any real sense that mattered.?

Really?

Really?

Talk about not reading history books.

The freedom of black slaves was not perfect- there were abuses- BUT- they were freed in a very real sense that mattered- in that they no longer lived in fear of being sold away from their family and friends.

They no longer had to fear that their sons and daughters would be sold away from them. That their wives would be sold away from their family.

Tell us all how you think that didn't really matter.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm gonna ask a question - Who cares?

It's over and it can't be undone.

People who think they can use the Lincoln Myth as a faux moral soapbox to snivel and whine about the South in 2015. They think the Lincoln Myth gives them special cred or something. The problem with that pseudo-intellectual gibberish is that they would have to show that they themselves are just so Speshul and wonderful it's just a given they would have been completely unlike the vast majority back then and would be on the front lines 'fightin' the evil of slavery' or something, i.e. they're being ridiculously hypocritical and full of crap. Being 'against slavery n stuff' in 2015 is about as radical and daring as taking a nap after supper. Lincoln wasn't in any way conducting some high minded moral crusade against evil, nor were the northern states.

People like you want to convince everyone that the South didn't secede- and go to war- to protect the institution of slavery. You want to rewrite history so that Lincoln is the villain and Jeff Davis is a hero who was protecting his homeland- and ignore the entire issue of slavery.

I see this time and time again in threads like this- Southern apologists like you say you are countering the Lincoln Myth that he went to war to free the slaves- but NO ONE HERE IS CLAIMING HE DID.

That is just a strawman you folks keep dragging out.

 

[Picaro]

Sure free farmers were in danger. The Dred Scott decision had effectively turned the entire country into slave-holding territory. Also, Lincoln may not have been a farmer at the time, but he had been one in the past and the party he joined had free-soil as a major part of their agenda. So, once again, I don't see how you can make the case that slavery wasn't the major cause of the war. The South was afraid that free-soil would morph into abolition and that's why they seceded.

Yes, those 11 slaves in Kansas-Nebraska were certainly major competition ... The entire country wasn't turned into 'slave-holding territory', and I've already given the sources as to why that wasn't going to happen. It was a red herring issue. I can make the case that slavery wasn't the major cause because it's obvious it wasn't, as Lincoln himself and the Republican Party clearly stated.

 

[Picaro]

People like you want to convince everyone that the South didn't secede- and go to war- to protect the institution of slavery. You want to rewrite history so that Lincoln is the villain and Jeff Davis is a hero who was protecting his homeland- and ignore the entire issue of slavery.

I see this time and time again in threads like this- Southern apologists like you say you are countering the Lincoln Myth that he went to war to free the slaves- but NO ONE HERE IS CLAIMING HE DID.

That is just a strawman you folks keep dragging out.

ah, so now its the 'Ur a rayciss' argument ... lol ... Who apologized for the South? No strawmen; you being unable to make your case and having a tantrum doesn't change anything. Do prove I've ever apologized for the South or claimed Davis was a hero. You just can't make a case for the war be3ing some warm and fuzzy moral crusade, and are sniveling about it, that's all.

 

[Unkotare]

. Lincoln started the war, not the South....

This is bullshit denial of reality ala that scumbag Bripunk.

 

[konradv]

Sure free farmers were in danger. The Dred Scott decision had effectively turned the entire country into slave-holding territory. Also, Lincoln may not have been a farmer at the time, but he had been one in the past and the party he joined had free-soil as a major part of their agenda. So, once again, I don't see how you can make the case that slavery wasn't the major cause of the war. The South was afraid that free-soil would morph into abolition and that's why they seceded.

Yes, those 11 slaves in Kansas-Nebraska were certainly major competition. The entire country wasn't turned into 'slave-holding territory', and I've already given the sources as to why that wasn't going to happen. It was a red herring issue. I can make the case that slavery wasn't the major cause because it's obvious it wasn't, as Lincoln himself and the Republican Party clearly stated.

The Dred Scott decision is a red herring? FYI, it was a major change in the way slavery was viewed. Before the ruling states had the right to regulate slavery within their borders. Afterwards, a slave owner could bring slaves in, treat them as slaves and leave with them at will in non-slave states. That had to be a big deal for any free farmer.

 

[ClosedCaption]

How Much of the Civil War was About Slavery?

72.65%

 

[konradv]

ah, so now its the 'Ur a rayciss' argument ... lol ... Who apologized for the South? No strawmen; you being unable to make your case and having a tantrum doesn't change anything. Do prove I've ever apologized for the South or claimed Davis was a hero. You just can't make a case for the war be3ing some warm and fuzzy moral crusade, and are sniveling about it, that's all.

Don't cry about other people's arguments when you trivialize the whole thing by trying to get us to believe there were only 11 slaves in Kansas-Nebraska or the fact that Dred Scott could be applied everywhere, territory or state.

 

[Unkotare]

Lincoln was afraid of Britain coming into the Civil War and helping the South.....

Not terribly afraid. He sent Seward to make sure, but the British especially were unlikely to side with the South given public sentiment at the time. The Europeans could see that the South was unlikely to prevail, and they would have a very pissed off USA after the war if they had supported the would-be secessionists. The idiot traitors of the 'confederacy' really fucked up when they burned their cotton crop. Not only had Britain and other European countries stocked up on cotton in the bumper crop years just preceding the war, but they could get the cotton they needed from India, Egypt, and Brazil. In a way, it ended up altering global trade.

 

[Syriusly]

Sure free farmers were in danger. The Dred Scott decision had effectively turned the entire country into slave-holding territory. Also, Lincoln may not have been a farmer at the time, but he had been one in the past and the party he joined had free-soil as a major part of their agenda. So, once again, I don't see how you can make the case that slavery wasn't the major cause of the war. The South was afraid that free-soil would morph into abolition and that's why they seceded.

Yes, those 11 slaves in Kansas-Nebraska were certainly major competition ... The entire country wasn't turned into 'slave-holding territory', and I've already given the sources as to why that wasn't going to happen. It was a red herring issue. I can make the case that slavery wasn't the major cause because it's obvious it wasn't, as Lincoln himself and the Republican Party clearly stated.

Slavery was not the reason why the Union fought the rebellion.

Slavery was the reason why the Slave holding states- who feared losing their 'right' to own human property seceded- as South Carolina so succinctly stated.

And Secession is why South Carolina started the war by firing on American troops.

 

[Syriusly]

People like you want to convince everyone that the South didn't secede- and go to war- to protect the institution of slavery. You want to rewrite history so that Lincoln is the villain and Jeff Davis is a hero who was protecting his homeland- and ignore the entire issue of slavery.

I see this time and time again in threads like this- Southern apologists like you say you are countering the Lincoln Myth that he went to war to free the slaves- but NO ONE HERE IS CLAIMING HE DID.

That is just a strawman you folks keep dragging out.

ah, so now its the 'Ur a rayciss' argument ... lol ... Who apologized for the South? No strawmen; you being unable to make your case and having a tantrum doesn't change anything. Do prove I've ever apologized for the South or claimed Davis was a hero. You just can't make a case for the war be3ing some warm and fuzzy moral crusade, and are sniveling about it, that's all.

I didn't call you a racist- I have no idea whether you are a racist- or you are not.

I called you on your revisionist history- and thats what it is.