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

[Biff_Poindexter]

The Civil War was fought over several issues, slavery being one but not the main one. More over state's rights.

A very small percentage of Southerners owned slaves.

Yea, like 6% lol

I wonder why Mississippi would put this in their declaration if slavery is such a small small part...hmmm

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth"

 

[BlackSand]

Jim Crow agrees with you.

That's odd considering there was no real "Jim Crow" ...
And even with that "Jim Crow" was nothing more than a mock casket carried by the Detroit NAACP Chapter in 1944 ...

.​

.​

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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

"Racist" Is Richkids' Lingo. There Is No Reason It Should Automatically Be a Pejorative Term.

The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops. Neither side had moral superiority. Thinking that the North did is more proof that obsession with oppression covers up the hatred of the sons of Capitalists for all other White people. A truly compassionate person would be more outraged over how members of his own race were treated by the robber barons, but Preppy Progressives only identify with the class they were born in and their imaginary status of being Born to Rule.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

You're denying democrats left the Union rather than free their slaves?

Once again -- was the cause of the Civil War slavery or not?

Most of today's democrats have no problem admitting it was over slavery -- even tho it was the democrats of the 1800's who wanted slavery..

Why do conservatives have such a hard time accepting it tho? Its almost like they are ashamed to admit it -- is it because they know the democrats of then were the conservatives? Does that give you the sads?

 

[Imissbush]

Well, let's be precise, when you say "Civil War" are you referring to the war itself or to southern secession? The two are linked, obviously, but they each have different causes.

What was the difference?

Well the first wave of secession was obviously primarily related to fears about slavery, but the second wave after Fort Sumter was due to Lincoln's policies in response to Fort Sumter. Then the Civil War itself was based on Lincoln's desire to force the southern states to remain in the Union, and as he himself favored an amendment explicitly enshrining slavery as a constitutional right it would be incorrect to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

This is wrong. The issue was expansion of slavery into the territories and Lincoln didn't favor an amendment for slavery forever, at worse he would accept it to keep the peace, but he would not allow it to spread to Kansas, or to us taking in Cuba as a slave state.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, let's be precise, when you say "Civil War" are you referring to the war itself or to southern secession? The two are linked, obviously, but they each have different causes.

I don't think they had different causes, they seceded because they wanted to control their own economy, and slavery was a part of their economy, although not all slave states seceded.

Although I guess an argument could be made that the right to secede was invoked, the reasons for it were tied to slavery.

That's essentially what I just said. The deep south seceded primarily over slavery. After Fort Sumter states like Virginia seceded due to Lincoln's response. But that's different from why the Civil War was fought.

But then slave states like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri didn't secede, so it might be partially geographical and strategic.

The questions are, what if states would have tried seceding at another time in history over something else? Obviously the Civil War set some precedents.

Well Maryland was under martial law by Lincoln so it's probable they would have seceded. As for other times in history, the New England states threatened to secede in 1814 but ultimately did not. And of course the south was going to secede over the nullification crisis while Jackson was president, but they got a reduction in tariffs and didn't.

 

[Imissbush]

The Civil War was fought over several issues, slavery being one but not the main one. More over state's rights.

A very small percentage of Southerners owned slaves.

Yes, but a huge majority of southern favored white supremacy and slavery was white power. That's why they fought, thinking slavery would be undermined and blacks would get rights

 

[bendog]

The Civil War was fought over several issues, slavery being one but not the main one. More over state's rights.

A very small percentage of Southerners owned slaves.

Yea, like 6% lol

I wonder why Mississippi would put this in their declaration if slavery is such a small small part...hmmm

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth"

We didna say we wuddent 'ave sold em to ya! Ya didn have to come down heah, rape all the wummen an steal uh fahm hep!

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Here is how a sane adult who read more than 2 history books answers that question

Was the Civil War over slavery? Yes!

This is how a person with unresolved racism and pro-white supremacist views answers that question

Was the Civil War over slavery? No!!! and democrats started it!! but not over slavery!! but Democrats want to bring back slavery -- but not back then, because it wasn't over slavery!! Obama is a muslim!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Why bother? Secession was widely believed to be constitutional so nobody would have thought an amendment was necessary.

 

[Imissbush]

Well, let's be precise, when you say "Civil War" are you referring to the war itself or to southern secession? The two are linked, obviously, but they each have different causes.

I don't think they had different causes, they seceded because they wanted to control their own economy, and slavery was a part of their economy, although not all slave states seceded.

Although I guess an argument could be made that the right to secede was invoked, the reasons for it were tied to slavery.

That's essentially what I just said. The deep south seceded primarily over slavery. After Fort Sumter states like Virginia seceded due to Lincoln's response. But that's different from why the Civil War was fought.

But then slave states like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri didn't secede, so it might be partially geographical and strategic.

The questions are, what if states would have tried seceding at another time in history over something else? Obviously the Civil War set some precedents.

Well Maryland was under martial law by Lincoln so it's probable they would have seceded. As for other times in history, the New England states threatened to secede in 1814 but ultimately did not. And of course the south was going to secede over the nullification crisis while Jackson was president, but they got a reduction in tariffs and didn't.

A group of northers threatened secession, not the north, and South Carolina in 1832 feared Jackson would drench the state in blood if they broke up the union

 

[cnm]

That's odd considering there was no real "Jim Crow" ...

Absolutely not, it was quite imaginary...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Perhaps you should see my other posts in this very thread before trying to correct me on a position we agree on.

 

[Imissbush]

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.

Why bother? Secession was widely believed to be constitutional so nobody would have thought an amendment was necessary.

So it was ok to take away peoples citizenship in a secession state? People did not think that

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're denying democrats left the Union rather than free their slaves?

Once again -- was the cause of the Civil War slavery or not?

Most of today's democrats have no problem admitting it was over slavery -- even tho it was the democrats of the 1800's who wanted slavery..

Why do conservatives have such a hard time accepting it tho? Its almost like they are ashamed to admit it -- is it because they know the democrats of then were the conservatives? Does that give you the sads?

Is English not your first language? You posted here under other accounts, why are you having such a hard time all of a sudden

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Jim Crow agrees with you.

That's odd considering there was no real "Jim Crow" ...
And even with that "Jim Crow" was nothing more than a mock casket carried by the Detroit NAACP Chapter in 1944 ...

.​

.​

Yea them there Jim Crow laws never existed -- the coloreds had to too good if you ask me!!
*Spits out tobacco*

White Only: Jim Crow in America - Separate Is Not Equal

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

This is nonsense. If anything, the Emancipation Proclamation caused northern soldiers to abandon their post more than it inspired them to some noble cause.

New York City draft riots - Wikipedia

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

You're denying democrats left the Union rather than free their slaves?

Once again -- was the cause of the Civil War slavery or not?

Most of today's democrats have no problem admitting it was over slavery -- even tho it was the democrats of the 1800's who wanted slavery..

Why do conservatives have such a hard time accepting it tho? Its almost like they are ashamed to admit it -- is it because they know the democrats of then were the conservatives? Does that give you the sads?

Is English not your first language? You posted here under other accounts, why are you having such a hard time all of a sudden

Keep the deflection going -- your affinity for white supremacy is loud and clear

 

[Imissbush]

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst 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. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. 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 government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Where on Earth does it say it was permanent, and which founders?

"Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power." - Thomas Jefferson