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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A large FEDERAL Government led us to becoming the predominant global power we are

I bet you are happy about that.

 

[ATL]

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.

Hell the emancipation proclamation wasn't signed till 1863. That should tell anyone smarter than a rock that slavery wasn't the major cause of the civil war. If it had been that bill would have been signed three years earlier.

It wasn't a bill, it was an illegal proclamation made by Lincoln. Slavery wasn't officially abolished until the passage of the 13th Amendment.


.

True the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't made until 1863- but illegal?

Never was declared so- and Lincoln carefully worded it to be within his authority as the Commander in Chief-

Just the lovers of the Rebel Slave states are pissed off that Lincoln told their slaves that they would be freed.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the commander in chief to unilaterally write laws. Slavery was legal, he had no authority to declare it otherwise, by proclamation.


.

ACA was legal, tell me again how a president has no authority to declare it otherwise, it’s funny to watch a partisan hack pretend to be legitimate.

 

[ATL]

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.

I would only disagree with the bold part. What they were to white people (North and South). That seems to be the hang up in these discussions many times. All white people, North and South, (with the exception of very few) viewed blacks as lesser humans.

Otherwise, I don't disagree.

Yet those northern whites defended their country against racist terrorists, and kicked their inbred ass so hard that their descendents are now bitching from the safety of a keyboard about things “should” be, and reminiscing about the 50’s. They even elected a white nationalist as POTUS thinking their country will be white again.... LoL.

 

[Syriusly]

Liberals founded this country. I don't know any libtards- then or now. The very concept of individual liberty was an liberal idea at the time.

Correct. Liberals founded this country.

Liberals are not leftists.

Leftists have bastardized the term liberal and misappropriated it.

I am a liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal.

I am a liberal.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal- and slave owner.

Which was really a contradiction- which just shows how messy history is.

 

[rightwinger]

A large FEDERAL Government led us to becoming the predominant global power we are

I bet you are happy about that.

Actually, I am

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I would only disagree with the bold part. What they were to white people (North and South). That seems to be the hang up in these discussions many times. All white people, North and South, (with the exception of very few) viewed blacks as lesser humans.

Otherwise, I don't disagree.

Yet those northern whites defended their country against racist terrorists, and kicked their inbred ass so hard that their descendents are now bitching from the safety of a keyboard about things “should” be, and reminiscing about the 50’s. They even elected a white nationalist as POTUS thinking their country will be white again.... LoL.

The supermajority of those northern whites were also racist, and plenty were terrorists about it.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I added citations and quotes, as well as a link to the actual document text, which you ignored, because I had proven you wrong. Since you neglected to counter any of my points and citations, I'll accept your admission of defeat.

You provided a citation- and I am glad to quote from it
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
And note it doesn't mention tariffs that I can find- but every one of them references slavery at least once- most multiple times.

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississipi
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. T

South Carolina
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

Texas:
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confedera

Virginia

and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

Virginia references only that they’re the slaveholding states, a statement of fact. It does not say that they’re seceding over fears of slavery ending.

Yes- Virginia only mentions slavery once. Doesn't mention tariffs at all.

What powers of the constitution was the Federal government 'perverting' to the injury of Virginia?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I would only disagree with the bold part. What they were to white people (North and South). That seems to be the hang up in these discussions many times. All white people, North and South, (with the exception of very few) viewed blacks as lesser humans.

Otherwise, I don't disagree.

Yet those northern whites defended their country against racist terrorists, and kicked their inbred ass so hard that their descendents are now bitching from the safety of a keyboard about things “should” be, and reminiscing about the 50’s. They even elected a white nationalist as POTUS thinking their country will be white again.... LoL.

The supermajority of those northern whites were also racist, and plenty were terrorists about it.

Most Americans at the time were racists- of all races.

 

[Pogo]

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

Oh you mean the democrat war to kill their fellow countrymen rather than give up their slaves, right?

The Confederacy had no political parties, Frankie. They kicked 'em out. Deliberately.

The Civil War and what led up to it was only about "states rights" insofar as the doctrine of "popular sovereignty" ---- leaving the decision of whether to allow slavery in newly-admitted states --- was the position of the Stephen Douglas wing of the Democratic Party (and others) in the1850s. By the time Douglas was nominated as a Presidential candidate in 1860, the South completely shut him out. But by the time of secession following that election, all of the Confederate states cited slavery specifically as their basis.

Nor was political party affiliation ever any kind of requirement to own slaves. Slaveowners were Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, Know Nothings, Democrats, Constitutional Unionists and Those With No Party At All.

Oh and that Lincoln guy? Took a Democrat for a running mate and called it the "National Union Party". That was to garner Democratic voters in what was left of the country -- the part that still had political parties.

Prove any of that inaccurate.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am a liberal.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal- and slave owner.

Which was really a contradiction- which just shows how messy history is.

That illustrates the attitudes of the time.

In like fashion, most white people believed their race to be superior. So, slavery HAD to be subordinate to secession in terms of what caused the war.

 

[MPS777]

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.

I added citations and quotes, as well as a link to the actual document text, which you ignored, because I had proven you wrong. Since you neglected to counter any of my points and citations, I'll accept your admission of defeat.

You provided a citation- and I am glad to quote from it
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
And note it doesn't mention tariffs that I can find- but every one of them references slavery at least once- most multiple times.

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississipi
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. T

South Carolina
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

Texas:
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confedera

Virginia

and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

It’s remarkable how thick their denial is; search for the word slavery in that site and you’ll get 83 hits. Search for tariffs and you’ll get zero.

As Robert Toombs, future Secretary of State for the Confederates, said in 1860:
“The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death. One thing at least is certain, that whatever may be the effect of your exclusion from the Territories, there is no dispute but that the North mean it, and adopt it as a measure hostile to slavery upon this point. They all agree, they are all unanimous in Congress, in the States, on the rostrum, in the sanctuary - everywhere they declare that slavery shall not go into the Territories. They took up arms to drive it out of Kansas; and Sharpe's rifles were put into the hands of assassins by Abolition preachers to do their work. Are they mistaken? No; they are not. The party put it into their platform at Philadelphia - they have it in the corner-stone of their Chicago platform; Lincoln is on it - pledged to it. Hamlin is on it, and pledged to it; every Abolitionist in the Union, in or out of place, is openly pledged, in some manner, to drive us from the common Territories.”

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I added citations and quotes, as well as a link to the actual document text, which you ignored, because I had proven you wrong. Since you neglected to counter any of my points and citations, I'll accept your admission of defeat.

You provided a citation- and I am glad to quote from it
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
And note it doesn't mention tariffs that I can find- but every one of them references slavery at least once- most multiple times.

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississipi
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. T

South Carolina
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

Texas:
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confedera

Virginia

and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

Virginia references only that they’re the slaveholding states, a statement of fact. It does not say that they’re seceding over fears of slavery ending.

Yes- Virginia only mentions slavery once. Doesn't mention tariffs at all.

What powers of the constitution was the Federal government 'perverting' to the injury of Virginia?

Lincoln’s illegal blockade of southern ports comes to mind.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I would only disagree with the bold part. What they were to white people (North and South). That seems to be the hang up in these discussions many times. All white people, North and South, (with the exception of very few) viewed blacks as lesser humans.

Otherwise, I don't disagree.

Yet those northern whites defended their country against racist terrorists, and kicked their inbred ass so hard that their descendents are now bitching from the safety of a keyboard about things “should” be, and reminiscing about the 50’s. They even elected a white nationalist as POTUS thinking their country will be white again.... LoL.

The supermajority of those northern whites were also racist, and plenty were terrorists about it.

Most Americans at the time were racists- of all races.

Then it doesn’t make much sense to criticize southerners as racist, does it?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Confederacy had no political parties, Frankie. They kicked 'em out. Deliberately.

The Civil War and what led up to it was only about "states rights" insofar as the doctrine of "popular sovereignty" ---- leaving the decision of whether to allow slavery in newly-admitted states --- was the position of the Stephen Douglas wing of the Democratic Party (and others) in the1850s. By the time Douglas was nominated as a Presidential candidate in 1860, the South completely shut him out. But by the time of secession following that election, all of the Confederate states cited slavery specifically as their basis.

Oh and that Lincoln guy? Took a Democrat for a running mate and called it the "National Union Party". That was to garner Democratic voters in what was left of the country -- the part that still had political parties.

Prove any of that inaccurate.

I would say that is fairly accurate.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Then I say, you don't understand tariffs! If we had two countries here and the economic powerhouse of the two was controlled by one policy always going to the North you'd see the hateful and vengeful economic edging out that happened. The South had 75% of the world's cotton, they expected to stop sending it would cause worldwide reaction, its at least expectable. The tariff or industrial protectionism used to spread Britain's industrial revolution to the united states industry, constantly and always is Thomas stonewall Jackson I assume others talking about the bankers, the factories, I'm sorry its not as sexy as you like it to be, but absolutely vital, to the country's understanding after the war another 100 years, good old Robert E. Lee's rocking chair and Ulysses Grant's leather meeting chair, and the morality of family unit and the immorality of non-union labor and factories. The tariff meant the south against its will was dragged into the North's closed little society and closed out of the international markets, wehre we could produce the cotton by ahem particular means competitively with the Entire world, the nation was Used to build the North's industrial capability.

 

[ATL]

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.

I would only disagree with the bold part. What they were to white people (North and South). That seems to be the hang up in these discussions many times. All white people, North and South, (with the exception of very few) viewed blacks as lesser humans.

Otherwise, I don't disagree.

Yet those northern whites defended their country against racist terrorists, and kicked their inbred ass so hard that their descendents are now bitching from the safety of a keyboard about things “should” be, and reminiscing about the 50’s. They even elected a white nationalist as POTUS thinking their country will be white again.... LoL.

The supermajority of those northern whites were also racist, and plenty were terrorists about it.

Sure, hang your hat on that argument like it will cover the racist conservative ideology. You see, people are free to be as racist as they want to be, but when racists make policies to oppress blacks, that’s is where the true fucked up mentality comes into play. The south wanted to keep chattel slavery, implemented Jim Crow, implemented redlining policies, support the basdardization of the police being used as negro judge, jury, and executioners, while the north was always looked to be the place where the negro had to flee in order to escape people like those of you defending the confederacy.

Your whole argument here is dependent on you trying to denigrate the north because your southern ideology has been shown to be not only racist, but intellectually retarded.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The "Tariff of Abominations" (1828 and John Quincy Adams, not his father John Adams) is significant because at that point the first rumblings of secession bubbled up (in South Carolina). And that state, and the South in general, was hardly "suffering", being both where the nation's wealth was concentrated, and where its major shipping operations were going on -- Charleston specifically and the commerce passing through it (though one would hardly know it today) was absolutely vital to the national economy --- which is directly the threat Lincoln was addressing in engaging a fort which had been woefully undermanned. That is, undermanned as regards an internal threat rather than an external one.

 

[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

LoL, yea, it was strictly about slavery, more clearly, negro chattel slavery. Which is why so many historical documents from the confederacy mentioned negro slavery, their opposition to freeing them and giving them equal rights, and their willingness to fight the union over it.

History will not be changed because your ideology is found to be ******* racist.

So you think some dumb negro can't make it on their own without a lower bar and a handout and I don't. The racist is clear, Grand Dragon. Darkies are to remain on the Democrat plantation or you'll hung them down and destroy them

 

[Pogo]

Well, let's be precise, when you say "Civil War" are you referring to the war itself or to southern secession? The two are linked, obviously, but they each have different causes.

What was the difference?

Well the first wave of secession was obviously primarily related to fears about slavery, but the second wave after Fort Sumter was due to Lincoln's policies in response to Fort Sumter. Then the Civil War itself was based on Lincoln's desire to force the southern states to remain in the Union, and as he himself favored an amendment explicitly enshrining slavery as a constitutional right it would be incorrect to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

This is wrong. The issue was expansion of slavery into the territories and Lincoln didn't favor an amendment for slavery forever, at worse he would accept it to keep the peace, but he would not allow it to spread to Kansas, or to us taking in Cuba as a slave state.

I think you mean Santo Domingo (the Dominican Republic today) rather than Cuba, which was suggested to be annexed and used as a dumping ground to which slaves would be deported -- but this is basically accurate. The position of the then-new Republican Party was dead set against expansion of slavery (but not necessarily abolishing it) and the position of the Democrats was to let each new state decide for itself. The South saw that as a choice between a rock and a hard place, overblowing both positions into believing that the Rs would take away their slaves and the Ds would surround them with non-slave states until slavery choked. That's why Lincoln and Douglas both pulled zero electoral votes from the South in 1860.

 

[ATL]

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

LoL, yea, it was strictly about slavery, more clearly, negro chattel slavery. Which is why so many historical documents from the confederacy mentioned negro slavery, their opposition to freeing them and giving them equal rights, and their willingness to fight the union over it.

History will not be changed because your ideology is found to be ******* racist.

So you think some dumb negro can't make it on their own without a lower bar and a handout and I don't. The racist is clear, Grand Dragon. Darkies are to remain on the Democrat plantation or you'll hung them down and destroy them

What happened, they put too much starch on your Klan suit?