Started By
Message

re: If the civil war was about slavery, why’d they keep slaves in the North?

Posted on 5/23/25 at 8:32 pm to
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
82101 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 8:32 pm to
quote:

What document or speech gives evidence that the South fought to preserve the institution of slavery
I answered this already

quote:

it was already protected via the Constitution and the Supreme Court as well as Lincoln himself stating the South could keep their slaves as long as they re-entered the Union?
Lincoln was a known abolitionist who tried a Hail Mary to keep the union together, well before the Emancipation Proclamation.

Nobody believed him, and for good reason. The GOP and Lincoln were deadset on ending slavery

States began seceding as soon as he won. . .before he had even taken office. Why? Because they knew what was coming

LINK

South Carolina:

quote:

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.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.



Mississippi:

quote:

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. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.


Georgia:

quote:

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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.


Virginia:

quote:

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; 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.


quote:

The North definitely waged a war over the loss of money due to secession, not slavery.
Money was among the reasons, and not an insignificant one.

the GOP and Lincoln's desire to end slavery was one as well.

The South fought to keep slavery legal

The North fought to preserve the Union
This post was edited on 5/23/25 at 8:33 pm
Posted by Cuz413
Member since Nov 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 9:55 am to
quote:

I answered this already


You gave reasons for secession. Not war.

quote:

Lincoln was a known abolitionist


No he wasn't. Anti-slavery =/= abolitionist

quote:


> “I have no purpose to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.”



He ran on a platform of preventing slavery’s expansion, not abolition in the 1860 election

Promised not to interfere with slavery in existing states to avoid provoking war.

He only shifted to freeing slaves when it was apparent he underestimated the abilities of the Confederate military.

His EP freed no one.

He never tried to free slaves in the border States

He had no issues with Contraband Camps, which were worse in many ways than being a valued slave on some farms.

He had no set plan for the freed slaves.

He did not see Blacks as equals




Posted by TigerintheNO
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2004
44205 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 9:59 am to
quote:

so it applied only to states in rebellion and exempted border states like Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri to keep them loyal


New Orleans and the surrounding parishes were also exempt and were allowed to keep their slaves.
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
82101 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 10:03 am to
quote:


He ran on a platform of preventing slavery’s expansion, not abolition in the 1860 election

Yes, and nobody believed him.

Just like Obama opposing gay marriage

Nobody bought it, as evidenced, CONCLUSIVELY, in the quoted source documents. I included a link for your education.

You have to find a way around those.

quote:

He ran on a platform of preventing slavery’s expansion, not abolition in the 1860 election
He was trying to get elected

quote:

His EP freed no one.

He never tried to free slaves in the border States

He was at war from the the moment he was inaugurated

quote:


He had no set plan for the freed slaves.

He did not see Blacks as equals

Lincoln was very racist, but also an abolitionist

quote:

He had no issues with Contraband Camps, which were worse in many ways than being a valued slave on some farms.
You mean the refugee camps set up by escaped slaves, often with military assistance? Slaves were fleeing TO these camps, not away from them.

This post was edited on 5/24/25 at 10:14 am
Posted by tigger1
Member since Mar 2005
3749 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 10:12 am to
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Abraham Lincoln

Horace Greeley, 22 Aug. 1862

There are many quotes of Lincoln on slavery/
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
82101 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 10:21 am to
He wanted to end the war. It was a powerful moment where he is literally willing to compromise his most important ideals, to save the nation

quote:

“They believe that institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils. They believe that the congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States. They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District. The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest.”



- Abraham Lincoln and Dan Stone, Illinois State Representatives, March 3, 1837, in protest of anti-abolitionist resolution adopted by State legislature on January 20


quote:

“My ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal;’ and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another.”



- Abraham Lincoln, speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854, against the Kansas-Nebraska Act


quote:

“I think the Negro is included in the word ‘men’ used in the Declaration of Independence.”



- Abraham Lincoln, August 3, 1858, in a letter to Republican candidate David Davis


This post was edited on 5/24/25 at 10:23 am
Posted by tigger1
Member since Mar 2005
3749 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 10:58 am to
Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
39742 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 11:01 am to
I may be very off base here, so excuse me if I am. This is probably overly simplistic, but I’ve always seen it like this. Threat was not fought to abolish slavery or free slaves. I believe the North was attempting to tax goods produced with slave labor on “stated” grounds of morality and such. In reality, the south was becoming very industrialized and aligning themselves with France I believe it was, which scared the shite out of the North for a possible succession. How most things go, their reaction actually pushed succession to happening.
Posted by tigger1
Member since Mar 2005
3749 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 11:14 am to
Roaad is oversimplifying the cause of the war, which comes later in history and the rewriting of history.


All one has to do is read the soldiers letters from 1861-62, they are not fighting the war about slavery, it is the overreach of the government.

The war turns to freeing slave due to one reason, that is the unpopularity of the war and mass casualties no one saw coming

By late 1862 it is a total mess, the southern and northerns are tired of the war, and the coups have to be planned and taken in to feed the hungry. The North by this time is paying good money to join the cause and depends on the immigrants to fill those needs. But there is a short fall of manpower, so the turn to colored troops to fill ranks. By 1863 many union regiments are down to 250 mean and are near combat ineffective. The North is looking for replacement regiments.

By 1864 you have regiments with only 150 men left and by April 1865 you can find regiments with a total strength of 40 men,

Posted by grizzlylongcut
Member since Sep 2021
14455 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 11:18 am to
With the Confederacy losing, the true spirit of this nation died. This leviathan we have in DC was started there and then.

frick Lincoln
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
82101 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 11:30 am to
Tons of quotes near the start of the war, that involve him trying to prevent the war.

Are you seriously arguing that Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, and that he had no desire to end slavery?



Because that would be news to the entire Southern Populace circa 1861
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
82101 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 11:35 am to
quote:

Roaad is oversimplifying the cause of the war, which comes later in history and the rewriting of history.
No, you are minimizing the cause of the war, because you want a better apologetic. You can't get around the fact that, again, every secession proclamation that listed reasons listed slavey as the reason, or the primary reason.

Hell, they all referred to their group identification as "the slave-holding states"

Again, were there ancillary reasons? Yes. Were there secondary reasons? Yes.

But the institution of slavery was far and away the #1 reason the states seceded. And it isn't close

quote:

ll one has to do is read the soldiers letters from 1861-62, they are not fighting the war about slavery,
Wars aren't started by soldiers
This post was edited on 5/24/25 at 11:37 am
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
82101 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 11:44 am to
The nation was a tinderbox at the time, involving the differing opinions of the institution of slavery

It rendered inevitable with Kansas-Nebraska, Bleeding Kansas, and John Brown. Which made it clear to the South that the future of Slavery was in doubt.

Lincoln, at the time, was a very well known abolitionist. He had somewhat moderated into an anti-expansionist for political expediency.

When he was elected, the fears of the Southerners had come to fruition. . .well they is how they saw it.

Would Lincoln had freed the slaves without the War? Maybe, maybe not. But the reality is that the Southern States were certain he would, and that would have devastated the South, economically
Posted by omegaman66
greenwell springs
Member since Oct 2007
26329 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 11:50 am to
quote:

The Civil War was not about the north wanting to eliminate slavery. It was about the south wanting to maintain slavery.


Omg lolololol


You laugh but when the war started there was not intention of ending slavery if the North won. That came near the end of the war.
Posted by Cuz413
Member since Nov 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 12:00 pm to
Evidently he didn't mean that.

We can only take him seriously in things that benefit our perspective.
Posted by Cuz413
Member since Nov 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 5/24/25 at 12:07 pm to
quote:

Roaad is oversimplifying the cause of the war, which comes later in history and the rewriting of history


He is completely ignoring the history of division within the the US between the North and the South.

I posted earlier of several times the North wanted secession, and the nullification crisis of 1832 with S.C.

And none zero, zip, nada had to do with slavery. But all had to do with money and or political power.

True abolitionists were in the extreme minority. By large, no one gaf about Black people as they were seen as beneath the white class.

Even with several examples to prove to the contrary, he still says Lincoln was an abolitionist.
This post was edited on 5/24/25 at 12:08 pm
Posted by Cuz413
Member since Nov 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 5/25/25 at 7:47 am to
quote:

He was at war from the the moment he was inaugurated


He was in a crisis, not a war. He chose war.

quote:

Lincoln was very racist, but also an abolitionist


Find examples of where he was an abolitionist.

quote:

Yes, and nobody believed him.

Just like Obama opposing gay marriage

Nobody bought it, as evidenced, CONCLUSIVELY, in the quoted source documents. I included a link for your education.

You have to find a way around those.

quote:
He ran on a platform of preventing slavery’s expansion, not abolition in the 1860 election
He was trying to get elected



Dude, you are in overtime with this spin mode. He was no abolitionist. None not at all. Lysander Spooner, Fredrick Douglas, William Garrison were examples of abolitionists.

Lincoln was a liar and an opportunist. "Honest" Abe was a moniker for his ability to tell tales. It's why he was a good lawyer.

quote:

You mean the refugee camps set up by escaped slaves, often with military assistance? Slaves were fleeing TO these camps, not away from them


Butler named them contraband camps so they could view escaped slaves as seized enemy property, this way they could skirt the Federal law of returning slaves to their owners. This way they could also use them as indentured servants (you know, not slaves) to do labor for the Union army.
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
82101 posts
Posted on 5/25/25 at 6:38 pm to
quote:

He was in a crisis, not a war. He chose war.
That is a matter of opinion.

In his, Sumter was an attack on US soldiers. That is an act of war.

The slave-holding states felt it was a legal secession

The fact that there is no legal method to secede meant it was a subjective determination

quote:

Find examples of where he was an abolitionist.
I have many times in this thread, read my posts again

quote:

Dude, you are in overtime with this spin mode.
I am not. I am stating the facts of the situation, You are spinning to what you WANT to be true.

quote:

He was no abolitionist.
Even if he wasn't, and he clearly was, it wouldn't matter.

The Slave-holding states definitely believed him to be. So either they were right, or they were idiots.

The previously cited evidence clearly proves the states that seceded did so because they felt Lincoln and the Republicans were going to outlaw slavery.

quote:

Butler named them contraband camps so they could view escaped slaves as seized enemy property
Correct, but irrelevant

quote:

his way they could skirt the Federal law of returning slaves to their owners.
And he was unable to

quote:

This way they could also use them as indentured servants (you know, not slaves) to do labor for the Union army.
Except they volunteered to do so, and even got their fellow slaves to come join them.
Posted by Cuz413
Member since Nov 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 5/26/25 at 12:16 pm to
quote:

That is an act of war.


Anderson moving troops under the cover of night in plain clothes as well as coats turned inside out to conceal their identity preceded the firing on the fort. This was technically an act of war.

quote:

The slave-holding states felt it was a legal secession

The fact that there is no legal method to secede meant it was a subjective determination


Why would they not have a legal right to secede? The States signed the Articles of Confederation and it was stated as a perpetual union. Yet, each seceded from that compact to ratify the Constitution. And the Constitution does not have wording prohibiting a state from leaving.

Do not look at the States as they are viewed today. They are to be viewed as 50 individual sovereign entities. The States formed the Federal government as a servant to the States, not to be a ruler over them.

To think or see it otherwise is foolish and everyone who does so gives more power to the Fed Gov.

War never settles a legal dispute.

quote:

I have many times in this thread, read my posts again


And you also said he lied. So how can we know he truly meant anything that opposed slavery? We have just a many if no more examples of him being ok with slavery if he got what he wanted, that's no abolitionist



Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
82101 posts
Posted on 5/26/25 at 7:54 pm to
quote:

Anderson moving troops under the cover of night in plain clothes as well as coats turned inside out to conceal their identity preceded the firing on the fort. This was technically an act of war.
If the secession is not considered legal, it isn't.

quote:

Why would they not have a legal right to secede?
Show me the section in the US Constitution, which had been signed onto by all states as the supreme law of the land, that covers secession.

quote:

They are to be viewed as 50 individual sovereign entities.
I mean, this is embarrassingly false. You are talking about the Articles of Confederation.

The Civil War occurred long after Federal Authority had been established. Hell, it was a full 30 years after nullification had been 86'd

quote:

And you also said he lied.
He did. The South felt that way too. . .hence their seceding over slavery

quote:

So how can we know he truly meant anything that opposed slavery?
Are you really going to pull the "How can we be sure of anything because he lied about something to prevent a war?"

I mean he was consistent throughout his political career. He moderated his rhetoric to assist with Kansas/Nebraska. Every Southern Democrat knew he was an abolitionist. . .unless your argument is that secession coming immediately after the election was purely coincidental?
This post was edited on 5/27/25 at 10:37 am
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram