Was slavery an important factor in the Civil War?

Yes.

A lot of hate in the world.

It was for the rich farmer. The poor men fought the rich man's war, as is typical.

It was a war about money, first and foremost.

yes.

yes

well because it some peoples ancestor and we all want to be proud of our heritage. It's a shame we're so hellbent on showing the bad parts.

No this board will never understand this because

I describe it like this - slavery was NOT the engine of the Civil War.

But it was the fuel in the tank during that time.

The "engine" was a complex component made up of a lot of regional differences going back to the founding.

Most Confederate soldiers were loyal, patriotic citizens of their states first and the nation second (obviously, something had to give with secession). Likewise, most Union soldiers were loyal, patriotic citizens of the nation first and the Yankees really didn't have (or quickly lost by the early 19th Century) that state identification that Southern residents retained (still do, by and large).

Most Confederate soldiers did not individually fight to preserve that peculiar institution (and, no question, it was an explicit goal of the various secession instruments, but I'm talking about the individual level here). Most Union soldiers did not fight to free slaves and by 21st Century standards, probably 80% of Union troops would be considered white supremacists.

So, the war was paradoxically (and simultaneously) not really about slavery at all, and mainly about slavery.

I guess this is about the 200th time this thread has been started.

It should be voted on by the people who live in the cities where the statues are located. If they vote to take them down then so be it and if they vote to leave them up they stat.

quote:

---

Remember slavery was common around the world at that time

---

Almost every western country has abolished slavery by 1865. In France, Denmark, Netherlands, Great Britain, it had been abolished for many years.

quote:

---

Also most of these statues were not built right after the war, but rather later during the Civil Rights movement and Jim Crowe in order to send a message that their was a status quo that was going to be maintained.

---

The World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. didn't go up until almost 60 years after the fact.

quote:

---

Almost every western country has abolished slavery by 1865. In France, Denmark, Netherlands, Great Britain, it had been abolished for many years.

---

Right. And were great models on how to do it peacefully. But noooooo. We had to go to war.

Pride and arrogance will do that to you.

quote:

---

Did the Confederacy want to keep slavery legal? If so, how can one not see the problem with having a statue celebrating someone that fought for this cause?

---

Because that isn’t the cause for which most of them fought, all the way up to and including Robert E. Lee, the highest ranking general. To say otherwise is not only provably false, it displays an elemental ignorance of the subject.

quote:

---

Also most of these statues were not built right after the war, but rather later during the Civil Rights movement and Jim Crowe in order to send a message that their was a status quo that was going to be maintained. Can people on this board not see how this is problematic?

---

Most were actually built in the early 1900’s, when veterans of the Civil War were dying off, and the statues were erected to memorialize those who fought and died. Congress had long since made the veterans on the Confederate side one and the same with any other veterans. They were considered American soldiers, and their memorials were considered so as well, by law.

Having a problem with it is simply another in a long line of excuses for the complete and utter failure of democrat policies for the black people.