- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Here’s my problem with the idea of the civil war was fought over slavery
Posted on 6/17/20 at 7:40 am to Jack Daniel
Posted on 6/17/20 at 7:40 am to Jack Daniel
Wars are seldom fought for a single issue, but the question of slavery was the linchpin, as referenced by several seceding states themselves. It's not really up for debate.
This doesn't mean the North was chock full of altruistic crusaders (Lincoln himself was a racist), but to bend over backwards attempting to split hairs over whether slavery was the primary issue is highly disingenuous.
This doesn't mean the North was chock full of altruistic crusaders (Lincoln himself was a racist), but to bend over backwards attempting to split hairs over whether slavery was the primary issue is highly disingenuous.
This post was edited on 6/17/20 at 11:23 am
1
Posted on 6/17/20 at 7:42 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Most Southerners were fighting for their livelihood, not for the right to own black people.
I will never understand why people do this regarding the Civil War.
In your own post you admit that owning slaves was central to the economy. Then claim they weren't fighting to keep the ability to own slaves.
Yes they were.
The fact that they were fighting to keep slaves because keeping slaves led to some other conclusion doesn't change the fact that they were fighting to keep slaves.
It's like saying that I don't put gas in my car so that it will work, I put gas in my car because I want to drive across town.
The two are interconnected.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 7:47 am to wackatimesthree
Confederate Col. John S Mosby "the Gray Ghost" had this to say long after the war to revisionists
quote:
Now while I think as badly of slavery as Horace Greeley did I am not ashamed that my family were slaveholders. It was our inheritance. Neither am I ashamed that my ancestors were pirates and cattle thieves. People must be judged by the standard of their own age. If it was right to own slaves as property it was right to fight for it.
The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war, as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding. The truth is the modern Virginians departed from the teachings of the Father's.
John C. Calhoun's last speech had a bitter attack on Mr. Jefferson for his amendment to the Ordinance of '87 prohibiting slavery in the Northwest Territory. Calhoun was in a dying condition – was too weak to read it. So James M. Mason, a Virginia Senator, read it in the Senate about two weeks before Calhoun's death, March 1850.
Mason and Hunter not only voted against the admission of California (1850) as a free state but offered a protest against it which the Senate refused to record on its Journal, nor in the Convention which General Taylor had called to from a Constitution for California, there were 52 northern and 50 southern men, but it was unanimous against slavery. But, the Virginia senator, with Ron Tucker & Co. were opposed to giving local self-government to California. Ask Sam Yost to give Christian a skinning. I am not ashamed of having fought on the side of slavery, a soldier fights for his country, right or wrong, he is not responsible for the political merits of the course he fights in. The South was my country
Posted on 6/17/20 at 7:48 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Wars are seldom fought for a single issue, but the question of slavery was the linchpin, as referenced by several decoding states themselves. It's not really up for debate.
This doesn't mean the North was chock full of altruistic crusaders (Lincoln himself was a racist), but to bend over backwards attempting to split hairs over whether slavery was the primary issue is highly disingenuous.
Perfectly said IMO. When people explain that slavery was a major part of the civil war they aren’t saying (at least if they’re an honest knowledgeable student of history) the north was virtuous and progressive on race. They obviously weren’t.
However the south’s interest in slavery as a motivating factor is undeniable. The confederate constitution banned members of the CSA from abolishing slavery. That fact alone blows away the “state’s rights” argument IMO.
The writings of major secessionists are extremely clear that slavery was a motivating factor, additionally the places in the south that resisted the confederacy the most were nearly all places that had extremely small slave holding populations (East TN, Western NC, what would become WV, etc.)
Surely that’s not just some random coincidence.
As for the non slave holders that fought, you have to remember the mindset of people in the 1800s. Your nation calling you to war was a call that there was an EXTREME duty to follow. Your average poor white guy from Georgia probably didn’t think a great deal one way or another on why he was fighting. He knew the elites called for it so he was going. Period.
I don’t demonize average joe confederate soldiers. I probably would have been one of them. But to say the war wasn’t primarily about slavery is to ignore what the actual leaders of the CSA said about the war.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 7:56 am to Jack Daniel
quote:
Only the very wealthy in the south owned slaves.
Percentage of Households/ Owned slaves 1860 census:
Miss- 49%
S.Carolina - 46%
Georgia-37%
Alabama:35%
Florida: 34%
LA: 29%
Texas: 28%
N.C.: 28%
Virginia:26%
Tennessee:25%
KY: 23%
Ark: 20%
Just a select few
Posted on 6/17/20 at 7:57 am to ValDawgsta
quote:
I don’t demonize average joe confederate soldiers. I probably would have been one of them. But to say the war wasn’t primarily about slavery is to ignore what the actual leaders of the CSA said about the war
Yep and while the CSA should be seen for what it was, people with Confederate/slaveholding ancestors should not be ashamed: you have to judge them mostly by the standards of their time, like Mosby said. Also the slaveholding class was banning publication of anti-slavery materials in the South (and poor whites there were often illiterate)
Posted on 6/17/20 at 7:58 am to Jack Daniel
quote:wealthy make policy
Only the very wealthy in the south owned slaves
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:05 am to sugar71
People do everything but use decoder rings to try to whitewash the Confederacy. They sucked. They existed primarily to maintain slavery as an institution. Is it time for another historical ads whipping for the csa apologists?
The state's seceded in order of slaveholding status.
Large slave states 1st
Moderate 2nd
Borderline last
Pretty obvious trend.
Or you can go by the justifications given in secession papers. . .for those that wrote justifications.
Did all those that fought, fight for slavery? No. But the CSA fought for slavery, and some secondary reasons.
The state's seceded in order of slaveholding status.
Large slave states 1st
Moderate 2nd
Borderline last
Pretty obvious trend.
Or you can go by the justifications given in secession papers. . .for those that wrote justifications.
Did all those that fought, fight for slavery? No. But the CSA fought for slavery, and some secondary reasons.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:09 am to Jack Daniel
In the most simplest of explanations, the war between the states was fought because the Southerners didn't want the Yankees telling them what they could and couldn't do.
Us Southerners have and still have an independent nature and we don't like anyone coming around telling how we should do things, or that they have a better way to do things, or that we shouldn't do thing we do.
The Yankees were infringing on many of the state rights of the south, including slavery. At that time in history, the federal government had very limited powers over state matters. So when the federal government starting flexing their muscles and telling southern states what to do, they pushed back.
Many in the north did not want to go to war,so what better way to get the populace behind the war than to create a reason for the war that will spark outrage, Slavery, so the north pushed slavery, they used it as propaganda.
I know many of you might not like to hear this, but do the research of the north before the war and see what those people thought of the war.
And living in Atlanta, I still hate those Yankees moving down here and saying, Well in NY we do it this way. In words of the great Lewis Grizzard, Delta is ready when you are!
Us Southerners have and still have an independent nature and we don't like anyone coming around telling how we should do things, or that they have a better way to do things, or that we shouldn't do thing we do.
The Yankees were infringing on many of the state rights of the south, including slavery. At that time in history, the federal government had very limited powers over state matters. So when the federal government starting flexing their muscles and telling southern states what to do, they pushed back.
Many in the north did not want to go to war,so what better way to get the populace behind the war than to create a reason for the war that will spark outrage, Slavery, so the north pushed slavery, they used it as propaganda.
I know many of you might not like to hear this, but do the research of the north before the war and see what those people thought of the war.
And living in Atlanta, I still hate those Yankees moving down here and saying, Well in NY we do it this way. In words of the great Lewis Grizzard, Delta is ready when you are!
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:11 am to Roaad
Also, if this was not about slavery, but about the Morrill Tariff, nullification, and general State's Rights. . .why didn't a single free State join the Confederacy?
Not one.
In KY, the free half fought for the union against the slave half.
How does this ahistorical debate survive?
Not one.
In KY, the free half fought for the union against the slave half.
How does this ahistorical debate survive?
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:12 am to Jack Daniel
Call it what you want but it was fought over states rights. One significant aspect of that was owning slaves. The southern states wanted to continue owning them. The northern states were against it.
There were other issues but slavery was a very significant part of the whole thing
There were other issues but slavery was a very significant part of the whole thing
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:15 am to troyt37
quote:
and the fact that the Yankees just decided to ignore their own Constitution, regarding the powers that the Constitution gives the federal government.
Totally wrong.
One of the first things the Constitution established was the self-evident clause that all men are created equal. State laws that establish a hierarchy based on race are clearly unconstitutional. The federal government had every right to intervene with regard to unconstitutional state laws.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:16 am to SlidellCajun
quote:
Call it what you want but it was fought over states rights.
The fact that southern states opposed the right of northern states to pass state laws declaring slaves free once they made it across the border pretty much shoots the "state's rights" argument in the dick.
It wasn't about state's rights. Southern states were all for state's rights, right up until they didn't like the laws the northern states were trying to pass.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:17 am to BamaMamaof2
quote:
In the most simplest of explanations, the war between the states was fought because the Southerners didn't want the Yankees telling them what they could and couldn't do.
bullshite.
See above.
The southern states didn't hesitate to try to tell the Northern states what they could and couldn't do when it suited them.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:21 am to Jack Daniel
It was more than just slavery. It had to do with the North using their vast political power to impose their agenda on southern states. Slavery was the excuse, but it was more economical I.e industrial protection via tariffs that hurt the South’s cotton trade with Europe. South wanted to trade independently and exempt British goods from tariffs. North wouldn’t allow it. South believed slavery should be the decision of each state. People have to understand that in 1860 citizens were loyal to their state more than the country and got pissed off when other states tried to force them to do what they didn’t want to do. This caused the civil war. It was more about fighting for the right of each state to remain mostly autonomous in its affairs and be allowed to legally leave the union and conduct their own business if they didn’t like how the Union was being governed. Slavery was just one of the many issues included in this. It was probably the biggest dividing issue, but the vast majority of soldiers were fighting for their state and its right to decide what’s best for it.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:27 am to Jack Daniel
Who knows why each individual chose to fight for a doomed cause, but that cause which is clearly stated in various declarations of secession and secession docs was slavery.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:30 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
The southern states didn't hesitate to try to tell the Northern states what they could and couldn't do when it suited them.
WTH, give me one example of Southern states telling Northern states what the north could and couldn't do.
It was just the opposite. The north was trying to regulate every aspect of the southern life and commerce and that is what the Southerners could not tolerate.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:30 am to Jack Daniel
People still cling to the fantasy that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery?
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:31 am to BamaScoop
I think Frederick Douglas went to Lincoln a bout the issue of slavery. Lincoln told him if that was the case, the North wouldn't support the war effort. So it was to preserve the Union used as getting public interest for supporting the war.
I think I found a quote from General Grant that said he would relinquish his sword and fight for the confederates if it was a bout freeing the slaves.
I also read information when the union took over Arkansas. Phillips County had the most slaves and the union told them to stay put and not leave the area.
I think I found a quote from General Grant that said he would relinquish his sword and fight for the confederates if it was a bout freeing the slaves.
I also read information when the union took over Arkansas. Phillips County had the most slaves and the union told them to stay put and not leave the area.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 8:33 am to cwill
quote:
Who knows why each individual chose to fight for a doomed cause, but that cause which is clearly stated in various declarations of secession and secession docs was slavery.
No one is saying slavery wasn't an issue in the war, but it was a part of the war, not the only reason for the war.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News