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

[hadit]

What do they say about 'History?' The winners always write the history books. More folks should actually research the Civil War a bit more. The history books don't tell the real complete story. The Civil War wasn't solely about Slavery.

History is rarely as simple, cut and dried, and black and white as it's made out to be. Most "heroes" did some despicable things, while most "villains" did some decent ones.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

Because you have the right to terminate it.


.

Actually that is not a 'right'- which is why divorce was illegal in many states for much of our history.

I seriously doubt his marriage contract is that old. There ya go again, conflating todays standards with the past.


.

Great post they love to compare today's standards to years ago.. they can't comprehend and some idiot keeps posting libtards founded this country

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So when the Iraqi Army fired on the American Army it was appropriate and when we fired back- we were the aggressors?

So, when the American Army was occupying Iraqi territory, was it appropriate for the Iraqi Army to fire on the American Army?

Just what are you trying to argue?

 

[hadit]

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

A = B = C.

The war was about slavery. Period.

That's not what Honest Abe said when he started the war. Link said it was to keep the union together, not to free the slaves. In fact, he didn't free the slaves in rebel states until 1863 and slaves in the union weren't freed until after the war was over.

No slavery, no war.

The war was about slavery. Period.

The war was about slavery. Comma. And a bunch of other stuff. Ignoring the other stuff just means you're not very curious about history, which is almost never as neat and tidy as many like to pretend.

But hey, what ARE they teaching in government schools these days?

What other stuff?

You don't tell what that other stuff was.

Please enlighten us and don't give the states rights excuse. It was the right to own human beings as slaves. Nor will the they didn't like the federal government telling them what to do work because they didn't like the federal government telling them they couldn't own human beings as slaves.

So tell me, what is that other stuff?

There have already been multiple posts on the subject. Don't duplicate effort.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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 --

Nobody claims that the "Civil" War was not about slavery but that slavery was but one issue among many that together were and are referred to as states rights. At bottom it is the issue of weather the State or federal government has final authority over what rights citizens have and what laws they will live by. Each state has it's own Constitution and laws. At the time some states had Constitutions and laws that allowed slavery while some didn't. The basic issue was which had authority and that has remained in conflict related to such issues as gay marriage, abortion, public land use, etc.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

A = B = C.

The war was about slavery. Period.

That's not what Honest Abe said when he started the war. Link said it was to keep the union together, not to free the slaves. In fact, he didn't free the slaves in rebel states until 1863 and slaves in the union weren't freed until after the war was over.

No slavery, no war.

The war was about slavery. Period.

The war was about slavery. Comma. And a bunch of other stuff. Ignoring the other stuff just means you're not very curious about history, which is almost never as neat and tidy as many like to pretend.

But hey, what ARE they teaching in government schools these days?

What other stuff?

You don't tell what that other stuff was.

Please enlighten us and don't give the states rights excuse. It was the right to own human beings as slaves. Nor will the they didn't like the federal government telling them what to do work because they didn't like the federal government telling them they couldn't own human beings as slaves.

So tell me, what is that other stuff?

There have already been multiple posts on the subject. Don't duplicate effort.

Newbies , you have to screw with their minds, thinking they are posting something unique

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Nobody claims that the "Civil" War was not about slavery but that slavery was but one issue among many that together were and are referred to as states rights. At bottom it is the issue of weather the State or federal government has final authority over what rights citizens have and what laws they will live by. Each state has it's own Constitution and laws. At the time some states had Constitutions and laws that allowed slavery while some didn't. The basic issue was which had authority and that has remained in conflict related to such issues as gay marriage, abortion, public land use, etc.

Let me re-paste the title of my post while you explain to me why you keep typing all these words that don't disprove my point..

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

Ok, continue.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

There have already been multiple posts on the subject. Don't duplicate effort.

I wonder if on all of those multiple posts -- were there conservatives arguing with 12 paragraph thesis papers about how the Civil War wasn't over slavery? If so -- again, let me re-paste the title of my thread

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

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Let me re-paste the title of my post while you explain to me why you keep typing all these words that don't disprove my point..

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

Ok, continue.

You would have done just as well to make the title:

"Most conservatives believe the world is spherical."

Because, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, the cause of the WAR was secession. Slavery was the underlying issue, but no shots would have been fired had no one tried to stop states from leaving the union.

You have proved yourself to be a simpleton, incapable of acknowledging nuance. Congratulations.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Let me re-paste the title of my post while you explain to me why you keep typing all these words that don't disprove my point..

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

Ok, continue.

You would have done just as well to make the title:

"Most conservatives believe the world is spherical."

Because, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, the cause of the WAR was secession. Slavery was the underlying issue, but no shots would have been fired had no one tried to stop states from leaving the union.

You have proved yourself to be a simpleton, incapable of acknowledging nuance. Congratulations.

No, what happened was you slavery apologists reflexively started making excuses for slave-holding states..and opine about how you wish the South won...

**** you and your lost cause confederate revisionism..

And most conservatives didn't believe the world was spherical until science came and fucked it up -- Science -- another thing next to history, that conservatives are often on the wrong side of

 

[Wyatt earp]

Let me re-paste the title of my post while you explain to me why you keep typing all these words that don't disprove my point..

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

Ok, continue.

You would have done just as well to make the title:

"Most conservatives believe the world is spherical."

Because, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, the cause of the WAR was secession. Slavery was the underlying issue, but no shots would have been fired had no one tried to stop states from leaving the union.

You have proved yourself to be a simpleton, incapable of acknowledging nuance. Congratulations.

I still can't wait for this newbies breakthrough thread that Hitler was a conservative...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Let me re-paste the title of my post while you explain to me why you keep typing all these words that don't disprove my point..

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

Ok, continue.

You would have done just as well to make the title:

"Most conservatives believe the world is spherical."

Because, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, the cause of the WAR was secession. Slavery was the underlying issue, but no shots would have been fired had no one tried to stop states from leaving the union.

You have proved yourself to be a simpleton, incapable of acknowledging nuance. Congratulations.

No, what happened was you slavery apologists reflexively started making excuses for slave-holding states..and opine about how you wish the South won...

**** you and your lost cause confederate revisionism..

And most conservatives didn't believe the world was spherical until science came and fucked it up -- Science -- another thing next to history, that conservatives are often on the wrong side of

You do know if you had that opinion back then, you would of been hanged , right?

You can't compare 2018 society with 1860s and that's what your desperate to do.

 

[kaz]

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".

Thats bullshit. For the south it was about economics. No one sat there and said they wanted slaves. They wanted agriculture. Slaves were a tool not an end for them.

And slavery had nothing to do with the north going to war at all

 

[gipper]

Let me re-paste the title of my post while you explain to me why you keep typing all these words that don't disprove my point..

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

Ok, continue.

You would have done just as well to make the title:

"Most conservatives believe the world is spherical."

Because, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, the cause of the WAR was secession. Slavery was the underlying issue, but no shots would have been fired had no one tried to stop states from leaving the union.

You have proved yourself to be a simpleton, incapable of acknowledging nuance. Congratulations.

No, what happened was you slavery apologists reflexively started making excuses for slave-holding states..and opine about how you wish the South won...

**** you and your lost cause confederate revisionism..

And most conservatives didn't believe the world was spherical until science came and fucked it up -- Science -- another thing next to history, that conservatives are often on the wrong side of

There it is again...slavery apologist is anyone who opposes Lincoln’s War.

SIMPLETON label sure fits you!!

 

[Syriusly]

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.

View attachment 198330

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

Oh, Jesus.

At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, the issue of whether South Carolina could secede from the Union was still unresolved.

Can we all agree on that?

Or do you also insist on holding South Carolina to today's standards?

'still unresolved' by who?

South Carolina didn't consider it unresolved.

Nor did the United States.

Then South Carolina opened fire on troops of the United States Army.

Troops of the United States Army

You know- these guys- but 150 years earlier.

View attachment 198330

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

The Tariff of Abominations had been in place for decades, mentioning it at the point would have been a waste of time, and even if they had cited it as a reason, it wouldn't have mattered due to the fact that they were already opting out. They cited the most recent slight against them, and then chose to opt out.

They had been allowed to own slaves since America was first founded, so at the time, it was a state right, regardless of a person's moral stance on that. It WAS one of their rights, and the government was intending to even further infringe on their rights, and in the process, would be cementing themselves as the dominant authority in America.

I'd also like to point out that the main point that was made in several of the declarations was government tyranny, and the specifics therein referred to the government disagreeing with their ownership, not specifically of slaves, so they were citing the broader issue:
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Georgia notes that the North was using the Federal Government to succeed, while the south did not, and as a result, their economy has been suffering while the North prospers. In other words, the government had been screwing the south while helping the north.

In other words, as it always has been, the people suffered because the government was abusing its power to help the lobbyists become monopolies, by regulating their competition. So, yes, the Civil War and the secession of the south was an economic issue, which resulted from a bloated government, and the erosion of the rights of the states.

South Carolina cites violations of the Constitution of the United States, as does Texas.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So was the United States.

Allowing slavery was a concession the Southern States insisted on

Slavery was legal in all thirteen states in 1776. Try again.

Constitution was ratified in 1788. The continuation of slavery was a concession made to the south

The stain of slavery and racial discrimination is something the south pushed upon us for almost 200 years

The question, in this case, was when was the United States formed, which is 1776, not when was the Constitution ratified. In other words, the United States seceded from the British Empire and formed a slave state.

If in 1776 slavery was legal in all thirteen states how do you figure it was the south alone "pushing" slavery upon "us" for almost 200 years? The math doesn't add up. 1865-1776 doesn't equal 200.

The British Empire was a slave state in 1776. They abolished slavery in 1833.

The United States in 1861, after all the southern states seceded, was still a slave state.

 

[Syriusly]

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".

Thats bullshit. For the south it was about economics. No one sat there and said they wanted slaves. They wanted agriculture. Slaves were a tool not an end for them.

And slavery had nothing to do with the north going to war at all

For the South it was about 'economics'- the economics of slavery.

Most of the South's capital was invested in slaves. Most fo their production was produced with slaves.

AND- slaves themselves were a commodity to them- a commodity that they 'farmed' just as much as any proud owner of a herd of cattle does- and that was what they were to the South- a very valuable herd of humans.

Slavery is not why the north fought. But slavery is why the South tried to secede- and they fought do defend their secession attempt.

 

[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

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

Not all the Confederate states seceded before Lincoln took office. Why did Virginia secede?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The Tariff of Abominations had been in place for decades, mentioning it at the point would have been a waste of time, and even if they had cited it as a reason, it wouldn't have mattered due to the fact that they were already opting out. They cited the most recent slight against them, and then chose to opt out..

Wow- so you really believe that the reason the South seceded- is just what you imagine it to be- rather than the actual words in which they declared the reasons that they seceded.

I am guessing you voted for Trump.