Can we agree that the North started the war?

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

Not very specific was that? What specific tariffs and goods are you talking about? If they were important enough to start a civil war, you shouldn't have any problem identifying exactly what they were.

Are you kidding?

The South saved money, and lowered their reliance on slavery, by free trade with Europe. The North, who also owned slaves, and relied less on free-trade with Europe, signed tariffs that would clearly and significantly negatively affect the South more than the North. The South didn't take kindly to this, along with the North's Emancipation (which ONLY freed black slaves in the Confederate army when it was made, black slaves in the north were fine!.. )

You probably didn't know that. Why would the north only care about black slaves in the south, and not free their own?

Clearly, it was a war maneuver, not any moral move. History is written by the victors. You bought into the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

 

[BULLDOG]

Are you kidding?

The South saved money, and lowered their reliance on slavery, by free trade with Europe. The North, who also owned slaves, and relied less on free-trade with Europe, signed tariffs that would clearly and significantly negatively affect the South more than the North. The South didn't take kindly to this, along with the North's Emancipation (which ONLY freed black slaves in the Confederate army when it was made, black slaves in the north were fine!.. )

You probably didn't know that. Why would the north only care about black slaves in the south, and not free their own?

Clearly, it was a war maneuver, not any moral move. History is written by the victors. You bought into the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

The south lowered their reliance on slavery? You got anything verifying that, or did you just hear it at a KKK meeting?

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

The south lowered their reliance on slavery? You got anything verifying that, or did you just hear it at a KKK meeting?

Can't even have a civil discussion without people acting like immature children.

 

[BULLDOG]

Can't even have a civil discussion without people acting like immature children.

Would that be a yes or a no concerning proof of the south cutting back on their slavery?

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

Would that be a yes or a no concerning proof of the south cutting back on their slavery?

Maybe the KKK meeting you visit can tell you.

 

[BULLDOG]

Maybe the KKK meeting you visit can tell you.

I did visit a KKK meeting once. They told me I couldn't take pictures and kicked me out. You know they put robes on their horses?

 

[The_Lyrical_Miracle]

I did visit a KKK meeting once. They told me I couldn't take pictures and kicked me out. You know they put robes on their horses?

I've never been to one. I'd imagine they're tough to find these days considering how few there are in America today.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I addressed that. You stated a bland, vague, talking point, but do you know anything about what actually happened?

South Carolina succeeded from what was then the US. They were foreign territory. Lincoln advanced his army to fortify a foreign territory with military arms at Fort Sumpter.

If your next door neighbor, who you disowned after a squabble, came onto your property and began rebuilding something on it, you'd respond. That's all that happened.

Lincoln and the North acted like snowflake victims and claimed they were just innocent passer-byers stockpiling a fort with munitions, rifles, etc.

Lincoln wanted the war, he provoked the war, and he committed an act of war, then blamed the south for retaliating.

You fuckers tried to kill the entire country so you could keep fucking your slaves.

 

[Mushroom]

South Carolina succeeded from what was then the US. They were foreign territory. Lincoln advanced his army to fortify a foreign territory with military arms at Fort Sumpter.

By that logic, Cuba would be free to attack and overrun Guantanamo Naval Base. As our having it there at all is apparently an act of war against Cuba.

 

[Mushroom]

I've never been to one. I'd imagine they're tough to find these days considering how few there are in America today.

Not really. I have frequently run into Klukkers over the years. Especially in California.

 

[Mushroom]

How does one "attack" their own fort that they own, unless it was taken by foreign invaders... which they would have a right to attempt to expel?

Actually, the forts did not belong to South Carolina.

It once did, as that one along with Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, Fort Johnson, and others were expensive to maintain and operate. South Carolina once built and ran around 30 forts, but voluntarily deeded them all over to the US Army, starting in 1805, continuing for the next quarter century until 1836, then they turned over the last of their state run forts. Among those last was Fort Sumpter.

So what you are saying, is the equivalent of giving your brother a house. And he then owned it, paying all insurance, taxes, and doing all the maintenance for over 20 years. Then suddenly deciding he is not your brother anymore, so you try to beat him until he gives you the house back.

Sorry, that is not how it works. And that kind of deal was common, as under the Articles of Confederation a lot of states were responsible for their own defenses. Which cost them a hell of a lot of money, one of the main reasons that that government failed and a new one was formed under the Constitution.

But it's alright, I never expect logic and reason to work on the Lost Cause believers.

 

[mamooth]

Are you kidding?

The South saved money, and lowered their reliance on slavery, by free trade with Europe.

I've never heard that particularly loopy historical revisionism before. Who fed it to you, and why did you fall for it?

The south traded two things to europe, cotton and tobacco. Both were entirely dependent on slave labor.

The North, who also owned slaves, and relied less on free-trade with Europe,

New York City alone handled two-thirds of American trade. Boston was a poor second. New Orleans was third. The American federal government was funded by tariffs from NYC, not from the backwater cities of the south.

signed tariffs

The Morrill tariff was certainly unfair to the south, but it was implemented in March 1861, _after_ the southern states had seceeded. It was a _result_ of secession, not a cause.

that would clearly and significantly negatively affect the South more than the North. The South didn't take kindly to this, along with the North's Emancipation (which ONLY freed black slaves in the Confederate army when it was made, black slaves in the north were fine!.. )

When the war was going on, the Confederacy was telling its own citizens that the war about entirely about preserving slavery.

British traders first came up with the revisionism that you're pushing. England was antislavery, but those traders wanted to keep profiting from southern slave labor. So, they originated the revisionist history. The lost-causers later latched on to it.

 

[demsrhaters]

Listen, I know many like to troll in today's society/politics and completely demonize the south as nothing but a bunch of immoral slave holders while siding with a supposed moral and superior north.

Meanwhile, modern leftists often make this difference while asserting that the northerners like Lincoln, who owned slaves, are the epitome of evil in all of mankind... but, enough of discrediting moronic leftists (which isn't to be confused with a classic American liberal, who is viewed as extremely Conservative by today's standards)....

But, let's get to history...

A few things that are ignored or evaded by commonists who just except baseline, vague, textbook American history on the Civil war include...
1. Both northerners and southerners owned slaves at the time of the war, and most southerners didn't own slaves.
2. Both north and south prominent leaders questioned the morality of slavery
3. Slavery as far as the value of a human wasnt the central issue of the war, economics and federal vs. states rights was.
4. The North wanted to bully many non-slavery-related issues onto the south and created a northern/southern block politically
5. Lincoln owned slaves, acted against Congress criminally, and even attacked his own populace in Maryland.
6. Lincoln sent armed forces to stockade a Confederate (aka foreign) owned base.
7. It was not "illegal" to succeed from the union until states actually succeeded from the union, so those who succeeded broke no rules.

You miss the most important part. When the Civil War began, Every slaveowner was a democrat!
The war was not about North vs South. It was about democratic slaveowners vs everybody else.