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

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
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.


2ebbv5d.jpg




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.

ea1ksp.jpg

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.

You mean like how the rich stopped owning yachts because they became too expensive?
 
That states were formed as a "perpetual union" in the Ariticles of Confederation.
Not the same as the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution's preamble states it was created to form a "more perfect" union, meaning the perpetual union was still in effect.
Because they left out the "perpetual" part, we can only assume that they intended to do so, as part of making it "more perfect." Furthermore, "forming" a more perfect union implies that it is a different union than the less perfect one they are replacing.

Article I makes it even more clear that the states are not permitted to join a confederation.
So, they could seceded and be independent, as long as they didn't join a confederation?
A contract without a term of service is perpetual
My marriage contract says nothing about perpetual
 
It was US Property

They are under no obligation to surrender it. Attacking a US Fort is an act of war. Stupid move on their part
But, staying there was a hostile act, was it not? Or, are you still going to view South Carolina through the lens of 2018?
 
Winger seems to forget that the whole South with the exception of West Virginia withdrew from the Union.
They have no rights to Federal property

Well anything in the south belonged to the south. Once they seceded it belong to them.

And they did secede.
No it didn’t

Ft Sumter was built and maintained by We the People of the United States

The Confederacy had no rights to it

Ft. Sumter is off the coast of South Carolina. A South Carolina that seceded from the union and claimed everything for the State. All the men manning the Fort had to do was leave. There wouldn't have been a shot fired.

As for as South Carolinians were concerned Sumter belonged to the State of South Carolina.

Fort Sumter is not off the coast of South Carolina- it is within the harbor of Charleston.

Fort Sumter was a U.S. Army post built by the United States to defend the United States- South Carolina had no right to attack American troops there.



Fort Sumter
upload_2018-6-13_15-28-23.webp


Charleston
upload_2018-6-13_15-28-24.webp











Search Results
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
  1. Cached
  2. Similar
Fort Sumter is a sea fort in Charleston, South Carolina, notable for two battles of the American ... Map showing the location of Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter. Map ...
‎Battle of Fort Sumter · ‎Fort Sumter Flag · ‎Second Battle of Fort Sumter

Its still part South Carolina. In the harbor of off the coast.
 
The North started the Civil War, not the South. And the North had slavery too, albeit, not as much, but they still had it.

No it wasn't about Slavery, the War of Northern Aggression was Lincoln trying and succeeding in keeping the Union together.

Much like President Putin is doing over in the Soviet Union, working to try and bring the seceding SSR's back into the union under Russian hegemony

Yes- the United States started the Civil War in much the same way that the Ukraine invaded Russia.
 
It was US Property

They are under no obligation to surrender it. Attacking a US Fort is an act of war. Stupid move on their part
But, staying there was a hostile act, was it not? Or, are you still going to view South Carolina through the lens of 2018?

Staying on US Government property owned by the people of the US is not hostile
 
Sumter was no longer within the US, the US had no right to maintain a garrison there.


.

It was Federal property not state property

S Carolina had no right to it


Sure they did, it was part of the area that was withdrawn from the union.


.
It was Federal Property much like Gitmo is

S Carolina had no right to it. Attacking a US Govt Fort was an act of war
They paid a price


Maintaining a garrison of foreign soil and attempting to reinforce them was an act of war.


.
It would have been an act of war had it been foreign soil. In the case the act of war was firing on Federal troops on Federal property.
The war is over. Saying that the victory was there before the war is absurd.
It isn't a case of might making right, it is a case of wrong being wrong. The South was emphatically on the wrong side of history.
It is only surprising that the war lasted so long.


Secession preceded the war, you can pretend otherwise, but you would be wrong.


.
 
They have no rights to Federal property

Well anything in the south belonged to the south. Once they seceded it belong to them.

And they did secede.
No it didn’t

Ft Sumter was built and maintained by We the People of the United States

The Confederacy had no rights to it

Ft. Sumter is off the coast of South Carolina. A South Carolina that seceded from the union and claimed everything for the State. All the men manning the Fort had to do was leave. There wouldn't have been a shot fired.

As for as South Carolinians were concerned Sumter belonged to the State of South Carolina.

Fort Sumter is not off the coast of South Carolina- it is within the harbor of Charleston.

Fort Sumter was a U.S. Army post built by the United States to defend the United States- South Carolina had no right to attack American troops there.



Fort Sumter
View attachment 198327

Charleston
View attachment 198328










Search Results
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
  1. Cached
  2. Similar
Fort Sumter is a sea fort in Charleston, South Carolina, notable for two battles of the American ... Map showing the location of Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter. Map ...
‎Battle of Fort Sumter · ‎Fort Sumter Flag · ‎Second Battle of Fort Sumter

Its still part South Carolina. In the harbor of off the coast.
Ft Sumter is STILL Federal Property
 
They have no rights to Federal property

Well anything in the south belonged to the south. Once they seceded it belong to them.

And they did secede.
No it didn’t

Ft Sumter was built and maintained by We the People of the United States

The Confederacy had no rights to it

Ft. Sumter is off the coast of South Carolina. A South Carolina that seceded from the union and claimed everything for the State. All the men manning the Fort had to do was leave. There wouldn't have been a shot fired.

As for as South Carolinians were concerned Sumter belonged to the State of South Carolina.

Fort Sumter is not off the coast of South Carolina- it is within the harbor of Charleston.

Fort Sumter was a U.S. Army post built by the United States to defend the United States- South Carolina had no right to attack American troops there.



Fort Sumter
View attachment 198327

Charleston
View attachment 198328










Search Results
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
  1. Cached
  2. Similar
Fort Sumter is a sea fort in Charleston, South Carolina, notable for two battles of the American ... Map showing the location of Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter. Map ...
‎Battle of Fort Sumter · ‎Fort Sumter Flag · ‎Second Battle of Fort Sumter

Its still part South Carolina. In the harbor of off the coast.
I am nitpicking but since I have been there numerous times- there it is- right at entrance to the Charleston Harbor- not off the Coast of South Carolina

data=dVA7IvSH9aqTnfkTKKQf6-FF49EeNDWF_0QNYhqEYewi2oVgQclJMd6tHLkNjq3NDGaqpehN_rQnUEK2rnjJaBG2iqxL4cT4V0b_jEloPdSVL92OhU8ee-5C7x7Bui0nCvp31g
 
It was Federal property not state property

S Carolina had no right to it


Sure they did, it was part of the area that was withdrawn from the union.


.
It was Federal Property much like Gitmo is

S Carolina had no right to it. Attacking a US Govt Fort was an act of war
They paid a price


Maintaining a garrison of foreign soil and attempting to reinforce them was an act of war.


.
It would have been an act of war had it been foreign soil. In the case the act of war was firing on Federal troops on Federal property.
The war is over. Saying that the victory was there before the war is absurd.
It isn't a case of might making right, it is a case of wrong being wrong. The South was emphatically on the wrong side of history.
It is only surprising that the war lasted so long.


Secession preceded the war, you can pretend otherwise, but you would be wrong.


.

Secession was due to Slavery, you can pretend otherwise, but you would be wrong.

And Secession- and South Carolina's decision to fire on American troops- was the cause of the war.

And yes- the Confederate slave states were on the wrong side of history.
 
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
Slavery wasn't at the forefront until Lincoln attempted to free Southern Slaves, specifically, as a war measure to further cripple the southern forces. The secession was because of several things, one of the biggest being John Adam's Tariff of Abominations, which caused the South's economy to decline further. Other reasons include an expanding government, as the south believed, rightfully, that Federal Law shouldn't trump State Laws, as the States were originally intended to legislate for themselves, and to be able to opt out of the Federal Government's Nation-wide laws. Lincoln's wanting to free the slaves fell under this category because it's an example of the government eroding state rights through its expanding power.

So, in other words, it had been coming for quite some time, and was about waning agriculture vs expanding industry, and the rapidly expanding government becoming more powerful than the states, due to Presidents, like Lincoln, stomping all over State rights. The US will likely never recover from Presidents like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lincoln. The South just wanted to opt out.

I don't know why you guys want it to be about slaves, the south was leftist anyway, seems like you're attempting to further ruin your own image.
Slavery was at the forefront when southern states used it as a justification for secession
It was not at the forefront, it was an issue which leads to other issues. It also wasn't the only problem cited. You only view it as being at the forefront because you see race in everything.

Which is probably why it was cited among the reasons that the leftists left the union and formed the Confederacy.
It was THE issue and the reason they wanted to secede before Lincoln took office

They may have had some petty other grievances ......none of which warranted an immediate secession
No, it was A issue, just because you view the expansion of government, tariffs on your main resource, and the erosion of state rights, as petty issues, it does not make them so, and as a matter of fact, the South's economy happens to have been a VERY large issue, right up next to the erosion of their rights, and those two together formed the primary issue, Slavery was a SUB-issue. The main reason the government is able to rule over the states today is because nobody stopped Lincoln, or Woodrow Wilson, or FDR when the opportunity was there. These are not petty issues, the states have not recovered, and likely never will.

Your view of the government as an entity which should be allowed to handle any and all issues is short-sighted, even as the main problem with this view is apparent and staring you right in the face this very moment.
 
Well anything in the south belonged to the south. Once they seceded it belong to them.

And they did secede.
No it didn’t

Ft Sumter was built and maintained by We the People of the United States

The Confederacy had no rights to it

Ft. Sumter is off the coast of South Carolina. A South Carolina that seceded from the union and claimed everything for the State. All the men manning the Fort had to do was leave. There wouldn't have been a shot fired.

As for as South Carolinians were concerned Sumter belonged to the State of South Carolina.

Fort Sumter is not off the coast of South Carolina- it is within the harbor of Charleston.

Fort Sumter was a U.S. Army post built by the United States to defend the United States- South Carolina had no right to attack American troops there.



Fort Sumter
View attachment 198327

Charleston
View attachment 198328










Search Results
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
  1. Cached
  2. Similar
Fort Sumter is a sea fort in Charleston, South Carolina, notable for two battles of the American ... Map showing the location of Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter. Map ...
‎Battle of Fort Sumter · ‎Fort Sumter Flag · ‎Second Battle of Fort Sumter

Its still part South Carolina. In the harbor of off the coast.
Ft Sumter is STILL Federal Property

Sure it was before South Carolina seceded.

After is seceded it became to property of South Carolina. That's how South Carolina saw it.
 
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
The South was capable of paying its workforce. Cotton was a huge cash cow and plantation owners made fortunes. The workers who planted, maintained the crop, picked the crop and brought it to market received zero compensation.
The Aristocrats and Sweatshop Owners Get Off Scot-Free in This MInd-Controlled Thread

The Africans got room and board, protection from their own predators, medical services, and many other benefits they never got back in the jungle. Most Whites at the time lived in misery, with the Jews and Irish being treated worse than slaves. The most miserable lifestyle in the whole world was that of the Africans who got stuck back in the jungle. That is, if you don't consider selling their fellow Blacks into slavery as being high entertainment.
Your posting style is tedious

Your celebration of slavery is not worth reading

The only one celebrating slavery seems to be you.

No one on this board approved of slavery. It was barbaric and everyone on this board knows it. The op is about what caused the Civil War.

You think it was slavery. I and others think it was more about State Rights. Slavery was a part of it but not the main part. We have a difference of opinion. Period.

What were those 'states rights' that the Confederate States claim were being violated?

Virtually all had to do with slavery.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union

The next section asserts that the government of the United States and of states within that government had failed to uphold their obligations to South Carolina. The specific issue stated was the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and clauses in the U.S. Constitution protecting slavery and the federal government's perceived role in attempting to abolish slavery.


The next section states that while these problems had existed for twenty-five years, the situation had recently become unacceptable due to the election of a President (this was Abraham Lincoln although he is not mentioned by name) who was planning to outlaw slavery. The declaration states the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring of secession from the Union, which is described as:


... increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery ...[1]

 
The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity. All the continuous states. Those states willingly joined our union. That means the constitution doesn't allow any part of this nation to leave the union.
Show me.




If you read this whole thread you were already shown. As I said in my post you replied to.

The poster already showed you where in the constitution it says that we are a united states in perpetuity.

You might want to read the whole thread to get the answer. Again.

I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.


That wasn't and isn't in the Constitution. The articles of confederation were replace by the Constitution.


.
That states were formed as a "perpetual union" in the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution's preamble states it was created to form a "more perfect union", meaning the perpetual union was still in effect.

Article I makes it even more clear that the states are not permitted to join a confederation.

The argument that states were allowed to secede is just plain wishful thinking with no basis in fact.


Yeah, the preamble also says the government can only promote the general welfare too, how'd that work out. When that's brought up people are reminded the Preamble is NOT part of the Constitution.


.
 
Well anything in the south belonged to the south. Once they seceded it belong to them.

And they did secede.
No it didn’t

Ft Sumter was built and maintained by We the People of the United States

The Confederacy had no rights to it

Ft. Sumter is off the coast of South Carolina. A South Carolina that seceded from the union and claimed everything for the State. All the men manning the Fort had to do was leave. There wouldn't have been a shot fired.

As for as South Carolinians were concerned Sumter belonged to the State of South Carolina.

Fort Sumter is not off the coast of South Carolina- it is within the harbor of Charleston.

Fort Sumter was a U.S. Army post built by the United States to defend the United States- South Carolina had no right to attack American troops there.



Fort Sumter
View attachment 198327

Charleston
View attachment 198328










Search Results
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
  1. Cached
  2. Similar
Fort Sumter is a sea fort in Charleston, South Carolina, notable for two battles of the American ... Map showing the location of Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter. Map ...
‎Battle of Fort Sumter · ‎Fort Sumter Flag · ‎Second Battle of Fort Sumter

Its still part South Carolina. In the harbor of off the coast.
I am nitpicking but since I have been there numerous times- there it is- right at entrance to the Charleston Harbor- not off the Coast of South Carolina

data=dVA7IvSH9aqTnfkTKKQf6-FF49EeNDWF_0QNYhqEYewi2oVgQclJMd6tHLkNjq3NDGaqpehN_rQnUEK2rnjJaBG2iqxL4cT4V0b_jEloPdSVL92OhU8ee-5C7x7Bui0nCvp31g

In the harbor is still part of South Carolina.
 
15th post
Staying on US Government property owned by the people of the US is not hostile
Again, not a settled issue.

One side believed they were right because you can't leave the union.

The other side believed they were because foreign troops occupied their territory.

Or, are you AGAIN going to hold one side to a different standard because you are bigoted?
 
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
Slavery wasn't at the forefront until Lincoln attempted to free Southern Slaves, specifically, as a war measure to further cripple the southern forces. The secession was because of several things, one of the biggest being John Adam's Tariff of Abominations, which caused the South's economy to decline further. Other reasons include an expanding government, as the south believed, rightfully, that Federal Law shouldn't trump State Laws, as the States were originally intended to legislate for themselves, and to be able to opt out of the Federal Government's Nation-wide laws. Lincoln's wanting to free the slaves fell under this category because it's an example of the government eroding state rights through its expanding power.

So, in other words, it had been coming for quite some time, and was about waning agriculture vs expanding industry, and the rapidly expanding government becoming more powerful than the states, due to Presidents, like Lincoln, stomping all over State rights. The US will likely never recover from Presidents like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lincoln. The South just wanted to opt out.

I don't know why you guys want it to be about slaves, the south was leftist anyway, seems like you're attempting to further ruin your own image.
Slavery was at the forefront when southern states used it as a justification for secession
It was not at the forefront, it was an issue which leads to other issues. It also wasn't the only problem cited. You only view it as being at the forefront because you see race in everything.

Which is probably why it was cited among the reasons that the leftists left the union and formed the Confederacy.
It was THE issue and the reason they wanted to secede before Lincoln took office

They may have had some petty other grievances ......none of which warranted an immediate secession
No, it was A issue, just because you view the expansion of government, tariffs on your main resource, and the erosion of state rights, as petty issues, it does not make them so, and as a matter of fact, the South's economy happens to have been a VERY large issue, right up next to the erosion of their rights, and those two together formed the primary issue, Slavery was a SUB-issue.t.

Not according to the Confederate states.

Hardly a mention about tariffs.

And the South's economy? That was largely built around slavery- and the single largest capital in the South- so when you say that the South was trying to protect their economy- you are saying that the South was trying to protect their right to own human property to advance their economy.
 
No it didn’t

Ft Sumter was built and maintained by We the People of the United States

The Confederacy had no rights to it

Ft. Sumter is off the coast of South Carolina. A South Carolina that seceded from the union and claimed everything for the State. All the men manning the Fort had to do was leave. There wouldn't have been a shot fired.

As for as South Carolinians were concerned Sumter belonged to the State of South Carolina.

Fort Sumter is not off the coast of South Carolina- it is within the harbor of Charleston.

Fort Sumter was a U.S. Army post built by the United States to defend the United States- South Carolina had no right to attack American troops there.



Fort Sumter
View attachment 198327

Charleston
View attachment 198328










Search Results
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
Fort Sumter - Wikipedia
  1. Cached
  2. Similar
Fort Sumter is a sea fort in Charleston, South Carolina, notable for two battles of the American ... Map showing the location of Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter. Map ...
‎Battle of Fort Sumter · ‎Fort Sumter Flag · ‎Second Battle of Fort Sumter

Its still part South Carolina. In the harbor of off the coast.
I am nitpicking but since I have been there numerous times- there it is- right at entrance to the Charleston Harbor- not off the Coast of South Carolina

data=dVA7IvSH9aqTnfkTKKQf6-FF49EeNDWF_0QNYhqEYewi2oVgQclJMd6tHLkNjq3NDGaqpehN_rQnUEK2rnjJaBG2iqxL4cT4V0b_jEloPdSVL92OhU8ee-5C7x7Bui0nCvp31g

In the harbor is still part of South Carolina.

It is within South Carolina- and is property of the United States.

And there it was where the rebel slave states started the war by firing on troops of the United States Army.
 
Staying on US Government property owned by the people of the US is not hostile
Again, not a settled issue.

One side believed they were right because you can't leave the union.

The other side believed they were because foreign troops occupied their territory.

Or, are you AGAIN going to hold one side to a different standard because you are bigoted?

Oh it is pretty straight forward.

Who were the troops at Fort Sumter?

Troops of the United States Army

You know- these guys- but 150 years earlier.

upload_2018-6-13_12-43-32.webp


Tell us more about why you think it was appropriate to fire on the American Army?
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom