Most Conservatives Still Believe The Civil War Wasn't Over Slavery

[Hum Dinger]

It's my understanding that in the beginning of the war Lincoln desparately tried to NOT make the war about slavery. He knew that the southern states were passionate about keeping slavery so he was hoping to gain some political leverage in the south.

Later when the war became atrocious, he tried to make the war all about slavery to give the North a great moral justification.

Some how the casuality levels were not justifiable just to prevent interstate taxation.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I'm still baffled by the fact that the southern states didn't push for a constitutional amendment making succession legal.

It may have taken some time, but once they had that they could have seceded without any question.

 

[TNHarley]

I'm still baffled by the fact that the southern states didn't push for a constitutional amendment making succession legal.

It may have taken some time, but once they had that they could have seceded without any question.

If something is not illegal, is it still illegal?

 

[del]

Yea, the only thing an intelligent person has to do is read the fucking letters the southern states (confederacy) wrote explaining why they were seceding. Then read the speeches from the president and vice president of the confederacy to know why they were going to war.

Well if you read Davis's inaugural address he states, "our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit." So it's not quite that simple.

Jefferson Davis' First Inaugural Address | The Papers of Jefferson Davis | Rice University

yeah, it is

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

i'd also suggest you familiarize yourself with the declarations of causes of the seceding states.

they're very honest about the reason they seceded- it was to keep slaves

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

 

[there4eyeM]

The economy of the South was anchored upon slavery. The economics of slavery are inimical to a modern capitalist economy. These facts in confluence with other social and political trends made the end of slavery inevitable. The South chose not to seek a legal dissolution of its ties to the Union. The resulting rebellion was suppressed.

 

[Geaux4it]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

It wasn't over slavery. It was due to secession

Three Union states had slavery in addition, Lincoln had this view of slaves

-Geaux
------

Lincoln didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.
Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers’ phrase “All men are created equal” applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting “negro equality.” In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation

 

[Slyhunter]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

I just watched a lot of that Civil War series that was put out by the guy on Fox News. And it was Lincoln who made the war about slavery. Or to be more specific it was Lincoln who made the war about emancipation. He was losing the war until he gave Whites in Blue a reason to fight the Confederates. Northerners didn't care about successionists or worry about them separating destroying America. They fought it because Men were created Equal, even men who didn't look like them. Blacks are free because 300,000 whites died to free them.

However, there are those who fought on the Confederate side who did so because they were loyal to their state governments and not their Federal government. They didn't want the Federal government telling their state what to do.

 

[there4eyeM]

I'm still baffled by the fact that the southern states didn't push for a constitutional amendment making succession legal.

It may have taken some time, but once they had that they could have seceded without any question.

Such a change would have taken a lot of time. Also, the realists knew it would not pass. The South chose rebellion and lost. No nation allows itself to be torn apart, even if it doesn't have a specific law saying no part of it may leave. What's more, enough people understood the original intention of the founders and their documents to see that the Union was permanent.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

Sigh. . . . Double sigh. . . . Another product of our failed public education system. Here are some facts--that's spelled f-a-c-t-s--that you might want to consider the next time you discuss this subject:

* When Lincoln issued his troop call-up after the Fort Sumter attack, there were more slave states in the Union than there were in the Confederacy.

* Four of the eleven states that eventually came to form the Confederacy rejected secession when it was based on slavery-related issues and economic issues (like the tariff)--and they rejected it by hefty margins. Those four states (AK, NC, TN, VA) only seceded after Lincoln made it clear that he was going to launch of invasion against the Deep South states, because they believed it was unconstitutional and immoral for the federal government to use force against states that had democratically voted to leave the Union.

* The Confederate Constitution allowed--that's allowed as in permitted--the admission of free/non-slaves states into the Confederacy. Yes, you read that correctly: The Confederate Constitution said that free states could join the Confederacy and remain free states, that they would not be forced to legalize slavery.

* 2/3 of Southern families did not own slaves, according to the 1860 census.

* The Southern states that did secede mainly over slavery-related issues and economic issues--the Deep South states--did not secede over slavery per se but over the fear that the Republicans would seek to abolish slavery via unconstitutional means, or even violence (ala the John Brown raid), and over the belief that the Republicans would illegally ban slavery from all the territories. That is an important difference.

 

[del]

hard to believe fox news could be wrong


said no one

 

[Norman]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

Most democrats still believe that they weren't pissed when republicans freed their slaves.

Or that they don't want more taxations than slaves paid today.

 

[Doc1]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

Well your "opinion" is nice and all......but as they say EVERYONE has one. I love these over generalizations about any one group.

 

[TNHarley]

I'm still baffled by the fact that the southern states didn't push for a constitutional amendment making succession legal.

It may have taken some time, but once they had that they could have seceded without any question.

Such a change would have taken a lot of time. Also, the realists knew it would not pass. The South chose rebellion and lost. No nation allows itself to be torn apart, even if it doesn't have a specific law saying no part of it may leave. What's more, enough people understood the original intention of the founders and their documents to see that the Union was permanent.

Yes, the articles of confederation that meant nothing. LOL!

 

[cnm]

It continues that way today, in where white Americans don't think that "blacks have it that bad" and firmly believe that's WORSE to be CALLED racist than to have ACTUAL racism occur.

Conservatives are largely white, so....that's the long and short of it.

That phenomenon is quite observable in many Americans, from outside looking in.

 

[there4eyeM]

I'm still baffled by the fact that the southern states didn't push for a constitutional amendment making succession legal.

It may have taken some time, but once they had that they could have seceded without any question.

Such a change would have taken a lot of time. Also, the realists knew it would not pass. The South chose rebellion and lost. No nation allows itself to be torn apart, even if it doesn't have a specific law saying no part of it may leave. What's more, enough people understood the original intention of the founders and their documents to see that the Union was permanent.

Yes, the articles of confederation that meant nothing. LOL!

That is the opinion of some.

 

[TahoeHorn]

I read an interesting statistic about the economics of the South in 1860. I can't vouch for it.

"Two thirds of the wealth of the South was slaves."

Let that sink in.

If that's true the elimination of slavery was a profound economic question.

 

[Geaux4it]

Nothing was permanent which is why our founding fathers gave us the 2A. To fight off tyrannical government

-Geaux

 

[TNHarley]

I'm still baffled by the fact that the southern states didn't push for a constitutional amendment making succession legal.

It may have taken some time, but once they had that they could have seceded without any question.

Such a change would have taken a lot of time. Also, the realists knew it would not pass. The South chose rebellion and lost. No nation allows itself to be torn apart, even if it doesn't have a specific law saying no part of it may leave. What's more, enough people understood the original intention of the founders and their documents to see that the Union was permanent.

Yes, the articles of confederation that meant nothing. LOL!

That is the opinion of some.

Opinion? Are you sure thats the terminology you want to stick with?

 

[cnm]

I'm still baffled by the fact that the southern states didn't push for a constitutional amendment making succession legal.

It may have taken some time, but once they had that they could have seceded without any question.

I thought they had succeeded in seceding until they fired on Federal property.

 

[there4eyeM]

Nothing was permanent which is why our founding fathers gave us the 2A. To fight off tyrannical government

-Geaux

So, the Second Amendment is not forever, either?