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

[francoHFW]

To say that there would have been no war if there had been no slavery does not mean the war was fought over slavery. The federal government and South Carolina nearly came to blows over the tariff in 1833.

They definitely didn't succeed now did they?

Similarly, the direct cause of the Deep South's secession was Abraham Lincoln's election. The indirect cause was slavery.

The cause of the deep south's secession was them wanting to keep slaves -- they did not bite their tongue when they spoke about it or wrote about it.

It never fails that the only people trying to argue every other cause imaginable for Civil War other than slavery are conservatives -- but conservatives are the main ones who say "the democrats wanted slavery" -- yes that is true --so why keep making excuses for them? Unless.....

Keep lying lib, it's what you do. States rights was the main cause.

The state right to have slavery to be precise LOL

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Lincoln wanted blacks to go back to Africa. The vast majority of Northerners considered blacks inferior. The motto of the north was "Save the union" and as Bootney accurately pointed out the whole slavery thing came up 2 years into the war.

No amount of facts are going to phase you, are they?

Cool...so basically your point is that Lincoln didn't give a **** about slaves either? got it.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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

You seem to be bent on politicizing the issue of whether the war was about slavery or not. I’m not sure why.

In any event, let’s review the facts. The war was started when the confederates attacked Fort Sumter. At that time there was no official effort by the union to end slavery, but it was anticipated that the northern republicans would try to circumvent the Constitutional prohibition against direct federal attacks on slavery. Lincoln did write that if he could end the war without freeing a single slave he would do it.

So was it about slavery. It was for the secessionists for sure, but Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, and with the Emancipation proclamation he made it about slavery for the Union.

 

[mikegriffith1]

To say that there would have been no war if there had been no slavery does not mean the war was fought over slavery. The federal government and South Carolina nearly came to blows over the tariff in 1833.

They definitely didn't succeed now did they?

Similarly, the direct cause of the Deep South's secession was Abraham Lincoln's election. The indirect cause was slavery.

The cause of the deep south's secession was them wanting to keep slaves -- they did not bite their tongue when they spoke about it or wrote about it.

It never fails that the only people trying to argue every other cause imaginable for Civil War other than slavery are conservatives -- but conservatives are the main ones who say "the democrats wanted slavery" -- yes that is true --so why keep making excuses for them? Unless.....

But secession and the war were two different events. The causes of secession were the not the causes of the war. The Deep South seceded months before the war started, and the Upper South did not secede until after Lincoln made it clear that he was going to invade.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, that's what the dumb asses who say the war was over slavery always like to omit.

The motto of the North was "Save the Union." Pretty damned clear

So republicans didn't really care about slaves either? got it.

So when Republicans say we are the party of Lincoln as a way to show how they are on the side of black folks -- that's all bullshit?

Ask a Republican, I don't really care. Republicans suck almost as much as you do

Yes. Being the "Party of Lincoln" is not such a great bragging point. It presumes that Lincoln was an angel and an abolitionist. He was not an abolitionist, until it became politically expedient to do so.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I see a lot of people throwing Lincoln under the bus with the "Lincoln didn't give a shit about slaves"

I'll make sure to remember that when Republicans are forced to defend their poor track record on Civil rights by saying "but but but we are the party of Lincoln"

 

[cnm]

Cool...so basically your point is that Lincoln didn't give a **** about slaves either? got it.

All the history says that. He didn't like the institution but he didn't give a **** about the slaves. Well, no more than other livestock.

 

[g5000]

It would have mattered. The Corwin amendment, which would have amended the Constitution, would only allow slavery where it currently existed. It banned slavery from expanding into new territories or states. That would actually have made things worse than they already were for the slave states, since up to that point the new states were allowed to decide for themselves whether to be slave or free.

The Corwin amendment was therefore a really bad deal for the slave states, and meant that they would eventually be outnumbered in Congress, and slavery would be abolished from the entire union by the eventual majority.

Which was all the slave-owning assholes wanted. They wanted it to never be taken away.

As a work-around, they wanted an equal number of slave states as expansion continued so they could prevent another amendment abolishing it later down the road.

I am not defending those fuckers for slavery or for it being the reason they seceded.

I am just making sure that nobody gets undue praise. The Civil War seriously changed the relationship between State and Union, or at least clarified it.

no slavery = no war is only true in that particular circumstance.

no slavery = no secession ever?

Way too presumptuous and unlikely in my opinion.

I agree with the crux of your points.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

All the history says that. He didn't like the institution but he didn't give a **** about the slaves. Well, no more than other livestock.

I know Lincoln didn't free the slaves due to his benevolence -- but I am not the one who trots Lincoln out to defend their party's civil rights bona fides

 

[g5000]

Letter by Abraham Lincoln to Albert Hodges

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg

 

[BluesLegend]

Biff buddy...oh never mind

I see you won't take the bait to walk in your truth -- good on you..

I'll catch you on the "Welfare" post -- that usually brings the racism right out of ******

I grew up in TN is that racist?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oh by the way -- are you folks claiming that Virginia abolished slavery before the Civil War? really?

Are you claiming that anybody actually said that? Really?

Yes, someone said that Virginia wasn't a slave state or as they put it -- Virginia didn't succeed over slavery like the other states did -- either they don't believe Va had slaves or they are admitting the other states did succeed over slaves

but all of those states fought to maintain slavery.

I said that Virginia didn't secede over slavery, which is true. They seceded because they didn't like Lincoln's unconstitutional policies in response to Fort Sumter. Nobody is saying that Virginia was not a slave state, and, as I've said repeatedly, the deep south states obviously did secede over slavery. That has never been in question.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You realize it would have taken 3/4 of the States to undo a Constitutional Amendment, right?

Which is what the non-slave states would have eventually had if limited to the then-existing slave states. An amendment would have eventually come.

That's why the slave fuckers didn't want it. Just because they were evil, white-supremacists assholes does not mean they lacked foresight.

Just being fair.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I am just making sure that nobody gets undue praise. The Civil War seriously changed the relationship between State and Union, or at least clarified it..

Keep in mind when I asked this question -- it was a simple yes or no -- The fear or someone getting undue praise is complete Conservative self projection -- which is why they get so hypersensitive and go on long tangents to try to defend confederate states -- but you never see Democrats feeling they have to defend those same confederate states -- even tho most conservatives blame liberal democrats for slavery -- their reflex to defend slave states tells me otherwise.

 

[sparky]

Our civil war started in '81 , Linclon didn't sign the emancipation proclamation until '83 1/2 way through the war

an epidemic proportion of union deserters followed

so much so that Linclon needed to step in and grant temporary amnesty

~S~

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I said that Virginia didn't secede over slavery, which is true. They seceded because they didn't like Lincoln's unconstitutional policies in response to Fort Sumter. Nobody is saying that Virginia was not a slave state, and, as I've said repeatedly, the deep south states obviously did secede over slavery. That has never been in question.

pssssttt....The Civil War was over slavery..

but trust me, it turned out to be ok in the long run -- it was the Democrats fault

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The South rejected the Corwin amendment because it banned the expansion of slavery in new territories or states.

Reason for war -- secession

reason for secession - slavery

Can we at least agree on that?

The South seceded to preserve slavery. The election of Lincoln was perceived as the election of an abolitionist. That's how Lincoln was portrayed in the South.

Lincoln actually believed that if slavery was necessary to keep the Union together, then so be it. If the abolition of slavery was necessary, then so be it. The preservation of the Union was Youparamount.

But in his heart, Lincoln despised slavery.

No matter how you spin it, though, the war was fought over slavery. I don't know why people resist that idea so vehemently. After all, the very same people spend a lot of time telling us Confederates were Democrats!

Positively schizophrenic. Like the Union itself.

You said the war was not fought over slavery, and in the same breath, said it was.

 

[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

If it was over slavery, why did Lincoln offer to enshrine slavery in the Constitution and why did the South turn him down when he did?

The South rejected the Corwin amendment because it banned the expansion of slavery in new territories or states. Which meant the inevitable minority position of the slave states in Congress forever.

So..yeah. The war was about slavery.

With the Constitutional amendment, it wouldn't have mattered

It would have mattered tremendously. The Corwin amendment, which would have amended the Constitution, would only allow slavery where it currently existed. It banned slavery from expanding into new territories or states. That would actually have made things worse than they already were for the slave states, since up to that point the new states were allowed to decide for themselves whether to be slave or free. And a previous compromise allowed one new slave state for every new free state. The Corwin amendment would put a stop to that.

The Corwin amendment was therefore a really bad deal for the slave states, and meant that they would eventually be outnumbered in Congress, and slavery would be abolished from the entire union by the eventual majority.

Where does the Corwin Amendment ban the spread of slavery?

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

It's true that Lincoln, and the Republican Party, deeply opposed the spread of slavery, and being in power would have effectively stopped its spread, but the Corwin Amendment by itself does nothing to ban the spread of slavery to newly admitted states from a plain reading of the text.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our civil war started in '81 , Linclon didn't sign the emancipation proclamation until '83 1/2 way through the war

an epidemic proportion of union deserters followed

so much so that Linclon needed to step in and grant temporary amnesty

~S~

errrr, you mean 61?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How about

Reason for war - theft of Federal property

Reason for theft of Federal property - Cracker pride

but, not slavery

 

[sparky]

errrr, you mean 61?

yes & thx

~S~