The Civil War

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
1,159
Points
1,918
Location
Arizona
Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
Name a specific other one please?
Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.

I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture. Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.
It's certainly not complete, there were both economic and political reasons for the South to secede. Prior to the ACW, the South controlled the Federal government and was an economic powerhouse that provided a very large percentage of US exports. That was rapidly changing due to immigration into the free states and the industrialization of the North. Power was shifting North and the leaders of the southern states wanted to stop it.
The souths economic power was rooted in slavery and the "export" you were talking about was cotton harvested by slaves. The interesting thing is that so many of those pushing the narrative of the civil war wasn't about slavery all just give euphemisms in an attempt I assume to not use the actual word slavery.
You are right, that's why the Confederacy was willing to fight a war to protect it's "peculiar institution".
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
64,461
Reaction score
13,312
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
Name a specific other one please?
Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.

I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture. Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.
It's certainly not complete, there were both economic and political reasons for the South to secede. Prior to the ACW, the South controlled the Federal government and was an economic powerhouse that provided a very large percentage of US exports. That was rapidly changing due to immigration into the free states and the industrialization of the North. Power was shifting North and the leaders of the southern states wanted to stop it.
The souths economic power was rooted in slavery and the "export" you were talking about was cotton harvested by slaves. The interesting thing is that so many of those pushing the narrative of the civil war wasn't about slavery all just give euphemisms in an attempt I assume to not use the actual word slavery.
The North clearly wasn't fighting over slavery, there's no way you can make the argument that they were. They even said they weren't, they were fighting to "Save the Union" and Lincoln said he would do that regardless of ending slavery.

Yes, slavery was interlaced in the South, but again, they didn't want slavery for slavery's sake. They wanted it for economic sake. Slavery was a means to an end, it wasn't the objective. So to call it the reason the south went to war falls under scrutiny. They were fighting because of economics
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
1,159
Points
1,918
Location
Arizona
It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
It wasn't a war between the states?

View attachment 462175
They've been lying to us in school all those years.
A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.
Neither government recognized the Confederacy. The UK sort of walked a fine line treating Confederate emissaries as ambassadors without recognizing them. Private citizens in the UK traded with the Confederacy for profit and some highly placed governmental officials turned a blind eye. That's why shipyards could build warships for the Confederacy despite American protests, no proof that the American officials could produce was deemed sufficient by British courts or politicians to stop the process until late in the war the British were building actual ironclads and calling them merchant ships since they weren't armed while in British waters. Even that barely squeeked by as proof in British courts.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,888
Reaction score
1,177
Points
195
Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
Name a specific other one please?
Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.

I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture. Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.
It's certainly not complete, there were both economic and political reasons for the South to secede. Prior to the ACW, the South controlled the Federal government and was an economic powerhouse that provided a very large percentage of US exports. That was rapidly changing due to immigration into the free states and the industrialization of the North. Power was shifting North and the leaders of the southern states wanted to stop it.
The souths economic power was rooted in slavery and the "export" you were talking about was cotton harvested by slaves. The interesting thing is that so many of those pushing the narrative of the civil war wasn't about slavery all just give euphemisms in an attempt I assume to not use the actual word slavery.
The North clearly wasn't fighting over slavery, there's no way you can make the argument that they were. They even said they weren't, they were fighting to "Save the Union" and Lincoln said he would do that regardless of ending slavery.

Yes, slavery was interlaced in the South, but again, they didn't want slavery for slavery's sake. They wanted it for economic sake. Slavery was a means to an end, it wasn't the objective. So to call it the reason the south went to war falls under scrutiny. They were fighting because of economics
As I said before in this OP. "It's about money is so generic it doesn't explain anything."Everybody dies when their brain stops functioning. It doesn't matter if the person dies of a heart attack or is beheaded. It does a bad job of explaining. So does the economic angle.

The South seceded because they felt Lincoln would take the slaves away. The South fired the shots that started the civil war. Without the issue of slavery, neither thing would have happened. The stated goal of the North at the time was irrelevant (although I could easily argue that slavery was the OVERRIDING social issue in both North and South well before actual hostilities)

It's kind of like saying that WW2 broke out because of Britain and France issuing an ultimatum to Germany over the invasion of Poland. It skips a few steps in the narrative to come to that conclusion don't you think.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,314
Reaction score
12,446
Points
2,180
It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
It wasn't a war between the states?

View attachment 462175
They've been lying to us in school all those years.
A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.
The Union naval blockade put a stop to that in short order. Both Britain and France refused to recognize the so-called confederacy as an independent state. Britain refused to be scammed into buying cotton from the idiot 'confederates' at inflated prices.
Leading to the re-birth of Egyptian cotton industry.
Made some money in Brazil and India as well. Dumbass 'confederates' burned a year's cotton harvest thinking they'd have the British over the barrel. Idiots.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,314
Reaction score
12,446
Points
2,180
.....

So tell me, you actually believe that the funding fathers [sic] meant that others can consent on your behalf. ......
The "funding fathers," Professor? :lol: Did they manage a mutual fund? :lol:

Tell me Professor, did every individual in every state ratify the Constitution?

Do you even know what "EVERY state that allegedly joined the so-called confederacy had armed regiments within the states actively fighting against the treason of the rebel dogs" means?
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,314
Reaction score
12,446
Points
2,180
....

Then you follow that up with they were evil and that justifies forcing them to stay in the United States, because they were evil. Your arguments get dumber and dumber
When those idiots occupied part of downtown Seattle this past summer, did you advocate for recognizing CHOP as an independent nation, shitforbrains?
CHOP = State. They are equivalent.

You seriously just made that argument.
......
I asked you a question. You ducked it.
 

schmidlap

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
1,578
Points
893
It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
You appear to be very confused, Buttercup.

All states in which Lincoln deployed United States troops to preserve the union were part of the United States. Lincoln was elected President of the nation that then consisted of 33 states and 10 organized territories.

There was no other sovereign nation involved.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
16,783
Reaction score
3,128
Points
280
Ah, the antebellum South, where anyone with enough slaves to provide him a good living could have a harem of women he could do anything with. What an epoch!
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,498
Reaction score
28,739
Points
2,180
It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
It wasn't a war between the states?

View attachment 462175
They've been lying to us in school all those years.
A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
Prove it.
It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
You haven't proved jack shit.
Study history, you brainless douche.
I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
Clearly I have.....
Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.

When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.

Did you read that part of history?
If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause will be let off the hook for far too easily.
Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,498
Reaction score
28,739
Points
2,180
It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
You appear to be very confused, Buttercup.

All states in which Lincoln deployed United States troops to preserve the union were part of the United States. Lincoln was elected President of the nation that then consisted of 33 states and 10 organized territories.

There was no other sovereign nation involved.
No they weren't, shit for brains. You're spouting Union propaganda that was jammed into your skull in a federally funded brainwashing mill.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
47,941
Reaction score
11,566
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
It's ironic that the same people who deny the murder of Jews during WW2 also deny evidence of pillage, arson and murder of innocent Southern civilians at the hands of Union generals like Sherman, Sheridan, (beast) Butler and (black dave) Hunter
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,498
Reaction score
28,739
Points
2,180
Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.

No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself "The Confederate States of America."
Wrong again. That's Union propaganda. The federal government has been brainwashing turds like you for 150 years to swallow that horseshit,
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,314
Reaction score
12,446
Points
2,180
It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
It wasn't a war between the states?

View attachment 462175
They've been lying to us in school all those years.
A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
Prove it.
It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
You haven't proved jack shit.
Study history, you brainless douche.
I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
Clearly I have.....
Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.

When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.

Did you read that part of history?
If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause will be let off the hook for far too easily.
Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,498
Reaction score
28,739
Points
2,180
It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
It wasn't a war between the states?

View attachment 462175
They've been lying to us in school all those years.
A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
Prove it.
It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
You haven't proved jack shit.
Study history, you brainless douche.
I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
Clearly I have.....
Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.

When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.

Did you read that part of history?
If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause will be let off the hook for far too easily.
Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
After you, shit for brains.
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,314
Reaction score
12,446
Points
2,180
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
99,314
Reaction score
12,446
Points
2,180
It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
It wasn't a war between the states?

View attachment 462175
They've been lying to us in school all those years.
A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
Prove it.
It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
You haven't proved jack shit.
Study history, you brainless douche.
I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
Clearly I have.....
Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.

When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.

Did you read that part of history?
If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause will be let off the hook for far too easily.
Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
After you, shit for brains.
You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
137,498
Reaction score
28,739
Points
2,180
It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
It wasn't a war between the states?

View attachment 462175
They've been lying to us in school all those years.
A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.
The Union naval blockade put a stop to that in short order. Both Britain and France refused to recognize the so-called confederacy as an independent state. Britain refused to be scammed into buying cotton from the idiot 'confederates' at inflated prices.
So if we put up a blockade around Mexico and threatened any country that objected, then Mexico would become legitimate U.S territory.

Is that what you're saying?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top