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

[Cosmos]

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

Wait a minute. You're quoting some garbage blog that appeared on a CNN site and somehow claiming that crap represents Conservative opinion?

Listen, stupid. It should be clear to everyone in the universe by now that CNN exists for the sole purpose of trashing Conservatives.

If you want to post on this topic, start out with some better material.

 

[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

Wait a minute. You're quoting some garbage blog that appeared on a CNN site and somehow claiming that crap represents Conservative opinion?

Listen, stupid. It should be clear to everyone in the universe by now that CNN exists for the sole purpose of trashing Conservatives.

If you want to post on this topic, start out with some better material.

Further, the article never mentions "Conservatives", it only talks about "Republican's". Ole "Bif", the newbie troll is simply revealing his cards without even realizing it.

 

[TNHarley]

More than 150 years later, the losers still won't take responsibility for the war. As if the US was supposed to just let them secede over slavery.

The war was about slavery. Period.

Why shouldn't they have been allowed to secede? Personally, I wish they had been allowed so I wouldn't have to deal with horrible people like George W. Bush today.

There are no provisions in the Constitution for secession. If the founders intended for states to come and go as they please, they would have established a procedure to do so.
Instead, they had provisions for joining the union and nothing about leaving it

That's not how the Constitution works. Anything not explicitly forbidden to the States remains a power of the States per the 10th Amendment. The States are not forbidden in the Constitution from seceding, therefore they have the power to do so under the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution allows secession.
The Supreme Court affirmed it

What a stupid argument, RW. Even for you.
Like, do you even know what the Constitution is? Holy shit
Answer this statist : If something isnt illegal, how is it illegal?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Lincoln's Inaugural Address.

Game. Set. Match.

Lincoln was trying to preserve the union as his first priority
Those states that left did so to preserve slavery

Game, set, match

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

Yes, they did overreact to the election of Lincoln, and, given hindsight, firing on Fort Sumter was pretty dumb too. Regardless, Lincoln's aim for the war was to force them back into the Union, thus that's the cause of the Civil War. The south didn't want a war, and Lincoln did.

As it turned out, if the South had not rebelled against our country, slavery would have lasted another 20 to 40 years and we would have evolved into a South Africa type country
By seceding and attacking Ft Sumter, the south accelerated the end of slavery to just four years and slave owners received nothing

That's entirely speculation on your part, and probably not even close to being correct. Slavery doesn't survive industrialization long, and the south was industrializing.

 

[Claudette]

Lincoln's Inaugural Address.

Game. Set. Match.

Lincoln was trying to preserve the union as his first priority
Those states that left did so to preserve slavery

Game, set, match

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

Yes, they did overreact to the election of Lincoln, and, given hindsight, firing on Fort Sumter was pretty dumb too. Regardless, Lincoln's aim for the war was to force them back into the Union, thus that's the cause of the Civil War. The south didn't want a war, and Lincoln did.

As it turned out, if the South had not rebelled against our country, slavery would have lasted another 20 to 40 years and we would have evolved into a South Africa type country
By seceding and attacking Ft Sumter, the south accelerated the end of slavery to just four years and slave owners received nothing

Lincoln was trying to preserve the union as his first priority
Those states that left did so to preserve slavery

Game, set, match

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

Yes, they did overreact to the election of Lincoln, and, given hindsight, firing on Fort Sumter was pretty dumb too. Regardless, Lincoln's aim for the war was to force them back into the Union, thus that's the cause of the Civil War. The south didn't want a war, and Lincoln did.

As it turned out, if the South had not rebelled against our country, slavery would have lasted another 20 to 40 years and we would have evolved into a South Africa type country
By seceding and attacking Ft Sumter, the south accelerated the end of slavery to just four years and slave owners received nothing

That's entirely speculation on your part, and probably not even close to being correct. Slavery doesn't survive industrialization long, and the south was industrializing.

I couldn't agree more.

Industrialization was on the way and slavery would have been extinct.

Its costs money to keep people as slaves.

Once the industrial revolution hit slaves would be expensive to keep.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

More than 150 years later, the losers still won't take responsibility for the war. As if the US was supposed to just let them secede over slavery.

The war was about slavery. Period.

Why shouldn't they have been allowed to secede? Personally, I wish they had been allowed so I wouldn't have to deal with horrible people like George W. Bush today.

There are no provisions in the Constitution for secession. If the founders intended for states to come and go as they please, they would have established a procedure to do so.
Instead, they had provisions for joining the union and nothing about leaving it

That's not how the Constitution works. Anything not explicitly forbidden to the States remains a power of the States per the 10th Amendment. The States are not forbidden in the Constitution from seceding, therefore they have the power to do so under the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution allows secession.
The Supreme Court affirmed it

And the Supreme Court has never been wrong? The Constitution, as I just stated, doesn't have to explicitly allow secession. Per the 10th Amendment the silence of the Constitution on the subject allows it.

 

[rightwinger]

Sigh.

Actually Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery- but thought that advocating abolition was not the answer.

The Secession was about slavery. And the war started when South Carolina attacked U.S. Army troops to protect secession.

So the Confederacy did go to war to protect slavery- even if the Union did not go to war to end slavery.

For the slave owners it may have been but for those who didn't it had to be something else. My Great, Great grandfather fought with the 57st Alabama Infantry Regiment and he did not own slaves.

He fought to maintain the institution of slavery

I don't know his reasons and he was my ancestor how the **** can you have a clue ?

Everyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting to preserve slavery. The sole purpose of creating a slave state (40 percent slave)

Nobody knows what the southerners were thinking.

Less then 1% of Southerners owned Slaves. In fact many slave owners were black.

Of course slavery was part of the Civil War but States Rights was a bigger part of it.

4 million slaves in a country of 9 million. Stop trying to downplay the impact of slavery.
We know exactly what southerners were thinking. They were quite clear in their articles of secession. They were leaving to preserve slavery

 

[Unkotare]

The North started the Civil War, not the South. ...

Wrong.

 

[gipper]

No slavery, no war.

The war was about slavery. Period.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address.

Game. Set. Match.

Lincoln was trying to preserve the union as his first priority
Those states that left did so to preserve slavery

Game, set, match

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

And yet Lincoln was the aggressor. He invaded. Thus committing treason. He should have been hung, as traitors were in those days.

 

[kaz]

Lincoln didnt give a shit about the slaves,

"If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." - Abraham Lincoln.

He said that at the end of the war, in 1864. You still have nothing showing that's why he started the war. You can't because he didn't

I showed you the 82 times the seceding states named slavery as the reason for secession.

The war was about slavery, and nothing but slavery. Period.

What a moronic post. How can you have a war over slavery when both sides were not fighting over slavery?

 

[Claudette]

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about secession.

Slavery was a part of the war, but not the bottom line.

 

[kaz]

Lincoln didnt give a shit about the slaves,

"If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." - Abraham Lincoln.

He said that at the end of the war, in 1864. You still have nothing showing that's why he started the war. You can't because he didn't

I showed you the 82 times the seceding states named slavery as the reason for secession.

The war was about slavery, and nothing but slavery. Period.

Secession was about slavery. The Civil War wasnt about slavery. The Civil War was about secession.

The simpletons dont grasp that

 

[g5000]

Lincoln was trying to preserve the union as his first priority
Those states that left did so to preserve slavery

Game, set, match

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

Yes, they did overreact to the election of Lincoln, and, given hindsight, firing on Fort Sumter was pretty dumb too. Regardless, Lincoln's aim for the war was to force them back into the Union, thus that's the cause of the Civil War. The south didn't want a war, and Lincoln did.

As it turned out, if the South had not rebelled against our country, slavery would have lasted another 20 to 40 years and we would have evolved into a South Africa type country
By seceding and attacking Ft Sumter, the south accelerated the end of slavery to just four years and slave owners received nothing

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

Yes, they did overreact to the election of Lincoln, and, given hindsight, firing on Fort Sumter was pretty dumb too. Regardless, Lincoln's aim for the war was to force them back into the Union, thus that's the cause of the Civil War. The south didn't want a war, and Lincoln did.

As it turned out, if the South had not rebelled against our country, slavery would have lasted another 20 to 40 years and we would have evolved into a South Africa type country
By seceding and attacking Ft Sumter, the south accelerated the end of slavery to just four years and slave owners received nothing

That's entirely speculation on your part, and probably not even close to being correct. Slavery doesn't survive industrialization long, and the south was industrializing.

I couldn't agree more.

Industrialization was on the way and slavery would have been extinct.

Its costs money to keep people as slaves.

Once the industrial revolution hit slaves would be expensive to keep.

Horseshit. That's a popular meme parroted by people who know nothing about American history, but it is total horseshit.

First of all, the South resisted industrialization. In fact, slavery kept the South from industrializing. It kept the Southerners lazy. The North was industrializing like gangbusters while the South continued to languish. That's why the North was able to kick the South's ass with one hand tied behind its back.

As a matter of fact, industrialization led to an explosion in the number of slaves.

Cotton exports were the primary US export from 1800 to 1930. You can see from the chart below that cotton was responsible for 57 percent of all US exports when the war broke out. You will not find any other export which had as big a footprint nor one which was the number one export for as long a period. Go ahead and try.

The slave population in the South was 650,000 at the time the Constitution was ratified. This is why the South was agreeable to the compromise in the Constitution which ordered the end of the importation of slaves by 1808.

However, between 1790 and 1808, the English and US textile industries exploded due to technological advances having nothing to do with the cotton gin. Everyone has heard of Eli Whitney, but few have heard of Samual Slater, "Father of the American Industrial revolution". This industrial advancement made textiles much cheaper, and thus greatly increased the demand for cotton. The demand for cotton drove the invention of the cotton gin, not the other way around.

The increased demand for cotton, in turn, required more slave labor.

So when the 1808 timeframe rolled around, the South began reneging on the Constitutional ban.

The slave population steadily and rapidly increased to the point that the slave population was 4 million in the South at the outbreak of the war.

Only a fool claims slavery was dying out due to industrialization.

 

[koshergrl]

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about secession.

Slavery was a part of the war, but not the bottom line.

It was about a president who needed a really good reason to suspend the constitution and extend to the federal government powers which were expressly forbidden by our foundation document, the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Lincoln was trying to preserve the union as his first priority
Those states that left did so to preserve slavery

Game, set, match

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

Yes, they did overreact to the election of Lincoln, and, given hindsight, firing on Fort Sumter was pretty dumb too. Regardless, Lincoln's aim for the war was to force them back into the Union, thus that's the cause of the Civil War. The south didn't want a war, and Lincoln did.

As it turned out, if the South had not rebelled against our country, slavery would have lasted another 20 to 40 years and we would have evolved into a South Africa type country
By seceding and attacking Ft Sumter, the south accelerated the end of slavery to just four years and slave owners received nothing

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

Yes, they did overreact to the election of Lincoln, and, given hindsight, firing on Fort Sumter was pretty dumb too. Regardless, Lincoln's aim for the war was to force them back into the Union, thus that's the cause of the Civil War. The south didn't want a war, and Lincoln did.

As it turned out, if the South had not rebelled against our country, slavery would have lasted another 20 to 40 years and we would have evolved into a South Africa type country
By seceding and attacking Ft Sumter, the south accelerated the end of slavery to just four years and slave owners received nothing

That's entirely speculation on your part, and probably not even close to being correct. Slavery doesn't survive industrialization long, and the south was industrializing.

I couldn't agree more.

Industrialization was on the way and slavery would have been extinct.

Its costs money to keep people as slaves.

Once the industrial revolution hit slaves would be expensive to keep.

Cotton was king and industrialization of the south was a long way off. The need for slaves would not have ended until the 1930s when automated cotton pickers came about
But slavery was about more than cheap labor. It was about the subjugation of a race of people. When challenged on its insistence of a subclass of blacks, the south resorted to terrorism to maintain it

 

[kaz]

Lincoln didnt give a shit about the slaves,

"If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." - Abraham Lincoln.

He said that at the end of the war, in 1864. You still have nothing showing that's why he started the war. You can't because he didn't

I showed you the 82 times the seceding states named slavery as the reason for secession.

The war was about slavery, and nothing but slavery. Period.

Secession was about slavery. The Civil War wasnt about slavery. The Civil War was about secession.

A = B = C

The war was about slavery. Period.

Slavery was a symptom. The south was motivated by economics. Slavery was part of economics. You dont grasp root causes

 

[DigitalDrifter]

This again ?!!!

Ok, one more time folks.

The Civil.........oh **** it, I'm tired of arguing about this.

 

[Claudette]

Thank you for making the case that the Civil War was not prompted by slavery concerns.

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

Yes, they did overreact to the election of Lincoln, and, given hindsight, firing on Fort Sumter was pretty dumb too. Regardless, Lincoln's aim for the war was to force them back into the Union, thus that's the cause of the Civil War. The south didn't want a war, and Lincoln did.

As it turned out, if the South had not rebelled against our country, slavery would have lasted another 20 to 40 years and we would have evolved into a South Africa type country
By seceding and attacking Ft Sumter, the south accelerated the end of slavery to just four years and slave owners received nothing

The south overreacted to the the election of Lincoln. He was a political pragmatist and was looking to end the spread of slavery to new states not end the institution of slavery

So they created a slave state to ensure the continuation of slavery forever. By attacking the US, the south opened an opportunity to declare war.

Yes, they did overreact to the election of Lincoln, and, given hindsight, firing on Fort Sumter was pretty dumb too. Regardless, Lincoln's aim for the war was to force them back into the Union, thus that's the cause of the Civil War. The south didn't want a war, and Lincoln did.

As it turned out, if the South had not rebelled against our country, slavery would have lasted another 20 to 40 years and we would have evolved into a South Africa type country
By seceding and attacking Ft Sumter, the south accelerated the end of slavery to just four years and slave owners received nothing

That's entirely speculation on your part, and probably not even close to being correct. Slavery doesn't survive industrialization long, and the south was industrializing.

I couldn't agree more.

Industrialization was on the way and slavery would have been extinct.

Its costs money to keep people as slaves.

Once the industrial revolution hit slaves would be expensive to keep.

Horseshit. That's a popular meme parroted by people who know nothing about American history, but it is total horseshit.

First of all, the South resisted industrialization. In fact, slavery kept the South from industrializing. It kept the Southerners lazy. The North was industrializing like gangbusters while the South continued to languish. That's why the North was able to kick the South's ass with one hand tied behind its back.

Cotton exports were the primary US export from 1800 to 1930. You can see from the chart below that cotton was responsible for 57 percent of all US exports when the war broke out. You will not find any other export which had as big a footprint nor one which was the number one export for as long a period. Go ahead and try.

The slave population in the South was 650,000 at the time the Constitution was ratified. This is why the South was agreeable to the compromise in the Constitution which ordered the end of the importation of slaves by 1808.

However, between 1790 and 1808, the English and US textile industries exploded due to technological advances having nothing to do with the cotton gin. Everyone has heard of Eli Whitney, but few have heard of Samual Slater, "Father of the American Industrial revolution". This industrial advancement made textiles much cheaper, and thus greatly increased the demand for cotton. The demand for cotton drove the invention of the cotton gin, not the other way around.

The increased demand for cotton, in turn, required more slave labor.

So when the 1808 timeframe rolled around, the South began reneging on the Constitutional ban.

The slave population steadily and rapidly increased to the point that the slave population was 4 million in the South at the outbreak of the war.

Only a fool claims slavery was dying out.

Good to know you know what would have happened.

Oh slavery would have been gone just as soon as it became to expensive to keep slaves.

 

[g5000]

Even after the civil war, blacks were kept in virtual slavery in the South for another century. We'd probably still have slavery today if not for the Civil War.

 

[g5000]

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about secession.

Slavery was a part of the war, but not the bottom line.

Slavery was the ONLY issue. Period.

You all have been parroting a host of bullshit memes. I have provided solid evidence destroying those memes.

These are the memes of sore losers whose pride can't accept the facts, and who harbor secret desires to return to those days. "Make America Great Again".