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

[baileyn45]

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

Ok, I'm coming late to this. For heaven's sake, for as long as I can remember it's been the dems that have pointed out that the civil war wasn't about slavery. It was about maintaining the Union. And I agree.

 

[bripat9643]

Not every southerner owned slaves but they profited off the instititution. 40 percent of the population were in slavery

Business owners are still profiting,
at the expense of consumers, customers,
and their front line employees.

The institution of greed for gain,
did not collapse when slavery ended....

I may not have much, but I am better than a black man

That statement alone, tells me you are not

Business owners are making a profit? Horrors! How can we allow such evil?

 

[bripat9643]

Actually the cause to rally behind was Slavery, but the real reason was cotton..

It doesn't matter what the reason for the South seceding was. The bottom line is that Lincoln didn't invade Virgina to stop slavery. Lincoln and the yankees didn't give a damn about the slaves.

 

[baileyn45]

Actually the cause to rally behind was Slavery, but the real reason was cotton..

That's nonsense. The idea that the US was economically reliant in cotton is silly. At the start of the Civil War the economic output of NYC was greater than that of the entire south. Slavery was an incredibly destructive economic system, period. Slavery was beneficial to a very small group of white people in the south. It was utterly horrid for the vast majority of whites in the south. It devalued labor, not a good thing for the working man.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Well, now you can shuck and jive for massah Zuckerburg and Massah Brin.

Since that made entirely no sense --- deflection noted.

Well now, since it made perfect sense, intellectual deficiency noted.

Yea, perfect sense to a closeted racist slavery apologist -- kudos

So care to explain how Facebook has anything to do with the civil war or anything else discussed in this thread?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

.

Yea, that is why I always wondered why Republicans called themselves the party of Lincoln as a way of showing how they were for equal rights

 

[Redfish]

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

correct and there were also slaves in the northern states, Lincoln's Illinois was one with many slaves.

 

[Redfish]

.

Yea, that is why I always wondered why Republicans called themselves the party of Lincoln as a way of showing how they were for equal rights

possibly because the dem party was the party of the KKK, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Bull Conner, segregation, and "separate but equal".

sorry dude, but history does not support anything that you have said in this thread. Might be time to pack your bags and leave.

 

[Pogo]

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

correct and there were also slaves in the northern states, Lincoln's Illinois was one with many slaves.

Kind of a neat trick since slavery had been completely abolished by that state's constitution of 1848. Damn linear time --- always getting in the way of a good fantasy.

 

[Pogo]

.

Yea, that is why I always wondered why Republicans called themselves the party of Lincoln as a way of showing how they were for equal rights

possibly because the dem party was the party of the KKK, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Bull Conner, segregation, and "separate but equal".

sorry dude, but history does not support anything that you have said in this thread. Might be time to pack your bags and leave.

There has never been a "party of the KKK". But it's true the DP was for a long time bipolar with extremes on both ends. You mentioned the hyperconservative wing, and you could have added Strom Thurmond. A perfect illustration of how political parties exist for the purpose of corralling power, and not to represent some uniform ideology.

 

[Redfish]

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

correct and there were also slaves in the northern states, Lincoln's Illinois was one with many slaves.

Kind of a neat trick since slavery had been completely abolished by that state's constitution of 1848. Damn linear time --- always getting in the way of a good fantasy.

did I mention any dates in my post? No. there were slaves in Illinois and other northern states in US history, and only 6% of southerners owned slaves. It is also a fact that many white people were "slaves" indentured servents were actually treated worse than slaves in many places, it is also a fact that the first slave owner in the US was a black man and that African blacks sold other African blacks into slavery. It is also true that slavery exists today in Africa and the mid east.

the left wing bullshit that only white southern americans ever owned slaves is liberal BULLSHIT.

Now, I never said that slavery was right or moral. It was and is a terrible abuse of humans by other humans, but the current left wing tactic of using lies about slavery to divide this nation is immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong.

 

[Redfish]

.

Yea, that is why I always wondered why Republicans called themselves the party of Lincoln as a way of showing how they were for equal rights

possibly because the dem party was the party of the KKK, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Bull Conner, segregation, and "separate but equal".

sorry dude, but history does not support anything that you have said in this thread. Might be time to pack your bags and leave.

There has never been a "party of the KKK". But it's true the DP was for a long time bipolar with extremes on both ends. You mentioned the hyperconservative wing, and you could have added Strom Thurmond. A perfect illustration of how political parties exist for the purpose of corralling power, and not to represent some uniform ideology.

the KKK was made up primarily of democrats and existed in every state in the USA at some point in history. Yes, I could have mentioned Thrumon and I could also have mentioned Byrd.

but I agree that the parties today exist solely to preserve the power of their members. Schumer and Pelosi are two good examples, and you can add McCain and McConnell if you like.

 

[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

correct and there were also slaves in the northern states, Lincoln's Illinois was one with many slaves.

Kind of a neat trick since slavery had been completely abolished by that state's constitution of 1848. Damn linear time --- always getting in the way of a good fantasy.

did I mention any dates in my post? No. there were slaves in Illinois and other northern states in US history, and only 6% of southerners owned slaves. It is also a fact that many white people were "slaves" indentured servents were actually treated worse than slaves in many places, it is also a fact that the first slave owner in the US was a black man and that African blacks sold other African blacks into slavery. It is also true that slavery exists today in Africa and the mid east.

the left wing bullshit that only white southern americans ever owned slaves is liberal BULLSHIT.

Now, I never said that slavery was right or moral. It was and is a terrible abuse of humans by other humans, but the current left wing tactic of using lies about slavery to divide this nation is immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong.

Why did all of those fugitive slave acts apply to black folks? You would think they would want to capture all of those white slaves that escaped up north too, don't you think?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

the KKK was made up primarily of democrats and existed in every state in the USA at some point in history. Yes, I could have mentioned Thrumon and I could also have mentioned Byrd.

...that part about the KKK being primarily democrats in every state at some point in history ---- the KKK still exists, what made them identify more with Trump and the GOP than they do Democrats -- did something happen historically or something?

 

[Redfish]

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

correct and there were also slaves in the northern states, Lincoln's Illinois was one with many slaves.

Kind of a neat trick since slavery had been completely abolished by that state's constitution of 1848. Damn linear time --- always getting in the way of a good fantasy.

did I mention any dates in my post? No. there were slaves in Illinois and other northern states in US history, and only 6% of southerners owned slaves. It is also a fact that many white people were "slaves" indentured servents were actually treated worse than slaves in many places, it is also a fact that the first slave owner in the US was a black man and that African blacks sold other African blacks into slavery. It is also true that slavery exists today in Africa and the mid east.

the left wing bullshit that only white southern americans ever owned slaves is liberal BULLSHIT.

Now, I never said that slavery was right or moral. It was and is a terrible abuse of humans by other humans, but the current left wing tactic of using lies about slavery to divide this nation is immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong.

Why did all of those fugitive slave acts apply to black folks? You would think they would want to capture all of those white slaves that escaped up north too, don't you think?

your desperation is making you stupid.

 

[Redfish]

the KKK was made up primarily of democrats and existed in every state in the USA at some point in history. Yes, I could have mentioned Thrumon and I could also have mentioned Byrd.

...that part about the KKK being primarily democrats in every state at some point in history ---- the KKK still exists, what made them identify more with Trump and the GOP than they do Democrats -- did something happen historically or something?

the KKK today is a tiny group of morons, they have no power and make up no voting block of significance. Shall we discuss antifa, BLM, NAACP, CORE, black panthers, etc? since you seem to want to denigrate racists, how about these?

 

[Pogo]

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

correct and there were also slaves in the northern states, Lincoln's Illinois was one with many slaves.

Kind of a neat trick since slavery had been completely abolished by that state's constitution of 1848. Damn linear time --- always getting in the way of a good fantasy.

did I mention any dates in my post? .

Nope You didn't need to. You mentioned Lincoln though, and he had dates. By the time he was elected slavery had already been abolished in Illinois and had been wound down for decades.

Interesting side note from his Wiki page tells us that Thomas, his father, "served on slave patrols". Slave patrols were locally-organized civil posses that rode at night looking for runaway slaves, a practice that would later be taken up by the Ku Klux Klan.

there were slaves in Illinois and other northern states in US history, and only 6% of southerners owned slaves.

There were indeed. But by 1860 the northern states had abolished the practice individually.

I've pointed out way back (I think it was in this thread) that the "South" was in no way united on the idea of Confederacy. There were pockets of Union-loyal communities that ignored or actively opposed the CSA. West Virginia was born that way and East Tennessee almost did the same thing. The secessionists and the plantation owners fueling it were seen by many of the individual farmers/homesteaders as the rich elite using politics, and the common people, for their own selfish ends, hence the animosity. Particularly here in Appalachia.

It is also a fact that many white people were "slaves" indentured servents were actually treated worse than slaves in many places,

It is a fact that Henry Cromwell sent tens of thousands of Irish pagans to the Americas, mostly to the West Indies, as indentured servants, which is thought to be the derivation of that particular variety of English. But I know of no instances where they were "treated worse than slaves". The difference in indentured servants was that their status was finite; at some point their freedom was "worked off", as opposed to the racial style where it was born into.

it is also a fact that the first slave owner in the US was a black man and that African blacks sold other African blacks into slavery. It is also true that slavery exists today in Africa and the mid east.

Nope, it isn't a fact. The first slave owners in (what is now) the US was a community of Spanish settlers in (what is now) South Carolina. I already debunked this myth in post 1100. And that was in 1534.

the left wing bullshit that only white southern americans ever owned slaves is liberal BULLSHIT.

Never heard anyone say that. Got a quote?

Now, I never said that slavery was right or moral. It was and is a terrible abuse of humans by other humans, but the current left wing tactic of using lies about slavery to divide this nation is immoral, unethical, and just plain wrong.

Them maybe you should quit doing it.

 

[Pogo]

.

Yea, that is why I always wondered why Republicans called themselves the party of Lincoln as a way of showing how they were for equal rights

possibly because the dem party was the party of the KKK, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Bull Conner, segregation, and "separate but equal".

sorry dude, but history does not support anything that you have said in this thread. Might be time to pack your bags and leave.

There has never been a "party of the KKK". But it's true the DP was for a long time bipolar with extremes on both ends. You mentioned the hyperconservative wing, and you could have added Strom Thurmond. A perfect illustration of how political parties exist for the purpose of corralling power, and not to represent some uniform ideology.

the KKK was made up primarily of democrats and existed in every state in the USA at some point in history. Yes, I could have mentioned Thrumon and I could also have mentioned Byrd.

Nope, wrongo. First of all no political party was required to join the KKK. Secondly both the original KKK (1865-ca.1872) and the re-formed much bigger one (1915) were specifically nonpolitical and none of the founders had any known political affiliations. When the Klan did get into political campaigns in the 1920s they backed (and sometimes even supplied candidates for) governors and Senators and local offices in Colorado, Indiana, California, Kansas and Maine, all as Republicans, while opposing Democrats like Walton in Oklahoma, plus they endorsed Coolidge and Hoover and ran a smear campaign against Democrat Al Smith in 1928, so that wouldn't really be an efficient pattern for a "Democrat" organization. Got names if you want 'em.

At the same time they also backed Democrats and opposed Republicans in places where that was necessary. In Oregon they backed a Democrat governor and a Republican mayor of Portland. In Maine both the pro-Klan and the anti-Klan faction were Republicans, while the Dems were just anti.

The Klan wasn't there for politics; it was there as a social force. And in its original 19th century iteration it was one of at least two dozen similar groups of the same type that sprang up all over the ex-Confederacy.

but I agree that the parties today exist solely to preserve the power of their members. Schumer and Pelosi are two good examples, and you can add McCain and McConnell if you like.

Political parties have ALWAYS been about amassing power. That's the only reason they exist. That's what I keep telling the yahoos on this site who want to pretend the Democrats and Republicans of say 1860 have any relationship with those same parties of today outside the name.

 

[Pogo]

the KKK was made up primarily of democrats and existed in every state in the USA at some point in history. Yes, I could have mentioned Thrumon and I could also have mentioned Byrd.

...that part about the KKK being primarily democrats in every state at some point in history ---- the KKK still exists, what made them identify more with Trump and the GOP than they do Democrats -- did something happen historically or something?

That's a myth that floats around here. I shoot it down regularly. The Klan would highlight whichever of its hate targets would strike a nerve in that area. In Maine for instance it was Catholics. And Maine being as solidly Republican as the "Solid South" was Democratic, both the prominent Klan people (like Owen Brewster) and the prominent anti-Klan people, were Republicans.

The other inconvenient factor is that Catholics, Jews, Blacks, labor unions and immigrants --- the Klan's targets in those days --- are all Democratic constituents.

 

[Redfish]

the KKK was made up primarily of democrats and existed in every state in the USA at some point in history. Yes, I could have mentioned Thrumon and I could also have mentioned Byrd.

...that part about the KKK being primarily democrats in every state at some point in history ---- the KKK still exists, what made them identify more with Trump and the GOP than they do Democrats -- did something happen historically or something?

That's a myth that floats around here. I shoot it down regularly. The Klan would highlight whichever of its hate targets would strike a nerve in that area. In Maine for instance it was Catholics. And Maine being as solidly Republican as the "Solid South" was Democratic, both the prominent Klan people (like Owen Brewster) and the prominent anti-Klan people, were Republicans.

The other inconvenient factor is that Catholics, Jews, Blacks, labor unions and immigrants --- the Klan's targets in those days --- are all Democratic constituents.

thanks for posting those historical facts. But the one fact that you ignore is that the civil war was not ONLY about slavery. That is the topic being discussed here. but I congratulate you on your diversionary tactics.