re: Here’s my problem with the idea of the civil war was fought over slavery

I find it interesting that the South has always been vilified over slavery with many ignorantly thinking the Northerners were viewed as saviors o the black man and went to war to free them. NOTHING could be further from the truth. It is well documented how Northern troops treated the freed blacks.

The North was not an altruistic place so concerned about the plight of black people to end slavery. Quite the opposite. " Lincoln led Republicans controlled both houses of the 37th Congress. One of their select committees was the “Committee on Emancipation and Colonization.” The following resolution from that committee explains exactly what motivated Northern “anti-slavery.” Anti-slavery meant nothing more than “anti-black;” and to rid the country of an “inferior race” to prevent amalgamation.

37th Congress No. 148 REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON EMANCIPATION AND COLONIZATION, In the House of Representatives, July 16, 1862:

“It is useless, now, to enter upon any philosophical inquiry whether nature has or has not made the negro inferior to the Caucasian. The belief is indelibly fixed upon the public mind that such inequality does exist. There are irreconcilable differences between the two races which separate them, as with a wall of fire. The home for the Africans must not be within the limits of the present territory of the Union. The Anglo- American looks upon every acre of our present domain as intended for him, and not for the negro. A home, therefore, must be sought for the African beyond our own limits and in those warmer regions to which his constitution is better adapted than to our own climate, and which doubtless the Almighty intended the colored races should inhabit and cultivate."


Much of the objection to emancipation arises from the opposition of a large portion of our people to the intermixture of the races, and from the association of white and black labor. The committee would do nothing to favor such a policy; apart from the antipathy which nature has ordained, the presence of a race among us who cannot, and ought not to be admitted to our social and political privileges, will be a perpetual source of injury and inquietude to both. This is a question of color and is unaffected by the relation of master and slave.

The introduction of the negro, whether bond or free, into the same field of labor with the white man, is the opprobrium of the latter... We wish to disabuse our laboring countrymen and the whole Caucasian race who may seek a home here, of this error... The committee concludes that the highest interests of the white race, whether Anglo-Saxon, Celt, or Scandinavian, require that the whole country should be held and occupied by those races.”

Slavery was definitely a reason why the Civil War was fought, but the primary reason that Lincoln went to war against the South was to restore the Union. If you read Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, you will discover that he was going to allow the South to retain slavery if it surrendered by the specified date ---- and no, I do not support slavery.

quote:

---

I have decided it was over economics. Slavery happened to be a huge part of the Southern economy.

---

This is the simple truth. The Civil War began years before 1865 when the Northern-controlled Congress enacted heavy tariffs on goods produced primarily in the South. The South at the time contributed significantly more to the federal government than northern states, yet the majority of federal money was spent to improve the infrastructure in the north.

An immediate end to slavery would have also decimated the Southern economy. The people of the South were not willing to destroy their economy overnight. Most Southerners were fighting for their livelihood, not for the right to own black people. Slavery would have died out naturally. We did not need to lose 600,000 lives for it. While the Southern states frequently mentioned slavery in their succession declarations, it was mostly due to economic factors, not racial ones.

I can't think of one war in all of history that was fought simply based on race. Money and power is the driving factor for nearly all wars that have ever happened. The South wanted to keep their money. The north wanted to exert power over the South and their money.

quote:

---

fat cats

---

Democrats

quote:

---

Why would this guy fight a war for this rich slave owner that benefited him in now way?

---

The same reason men and women fight in the middle east today to protect the oil assets of the wealthy.

It's not as cut and dry as you want to make it.

quote:

---

Well, sure. But since the entire reason that the South wanted to secede was to keep slavery, then what was the war about?

---

States’ rights, duh. Just don’t ask what specific rights.

quote:

---

Wouldn’t a book be a better source of information instead of a statue memorializing the democratic slave owners? Rewriting history? The losing side, the democratic slave owners, shouldn’t have statues.

---

Because the Democrats were still a Dominant Political Party and their former slaves were still being treated like second class citizens at the time the UDC, Sisters to the KKK commissioned all the statutes to "preserve" the CSA/Democrat/White Supremacy heritage....

Now, the Democrats need Black people not to recognize that heritage belongs to the Democrat party

your mind is a terrible thing to waste. too late.

Confederate Soldiers of old and the Southerners who still fly the Rebel flag are bigger Patriots than any and every Leftist alive....that's a fact you need to ponder, boy.

quote:

---

*The War of Northern Aggression

---

The War of Southern Crimes Against Humanity

That works both ways.