Started By
Message

re: True or False...the civil war was fought over slavery.

Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:14 pm to
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:14 pm to
it was slavery, but because slavery was the item or agenda where all political and economic squabbles converged. economy, political representation, power of the government.

just like the 7 year war and the American revolution...economic climate and dynamics at play was the largest contributing factor.

when everyone is making money, credit is available, prices are low and profits high...no one is going to war.

the fight to make new states non slave states, the population of slaves as it relates to influence in the house of representatives. slaves were a threat to the north and slaves were the economy and power of the south...neither side was interested in the morality of it. Lincoln freed the slaves only after the war had begun which is interesting because Lincoln had spent the war consolidating the power of the entire federal government under the executive branch and i believe if JWB had not assassinated him he would never have relinquished it...so then i'm left to wonder precisely WHY he freed the slaves and it certainly wasn't MUH PRINCIPLES
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 1:28 pm
Posted by Bumble Bee
Northwest, La
Member since Jan 2011
753 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:14 pm to
Yes and No is the best way to explain it.

The South seceded over States' Rights issues. Issues involving taxation, tariffs, and yes slavery irrupted between South Carolina and the Federal Government over the decades prior to the war. However, before South Carolina officially seceded from the Union, Lincoln begged them to reconsider offering to allow them to keep slavery. South Carolina still left the Union, the other states followed.

Lincoln did not want to go down in history as the President who broke up the Union so he called up troops and the wheels were set in motion. His mission was to preserve the Union, Slavery wasn't the issue.

It wasn't until the threat of European nations getting involved on the side of the CSA did slavery become an issue officially. Europe did not want to be seen as supporting the existence of Slavery. What they saw in the secession movement as the breakup of a Democratic Union. This would help secure their own Monarchies. Britain had actually sent additional troops to Canada in preparation of aiding the CSA when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves in the southern states. This was enough to put a wedge between Europe and the CSA as now the CSA was fighting no only to leave the Union, but to keep slavery, thus keep England and possibly France out of the American Civl War.

This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 1:18 pm
Posted by Volatile
Tennessee
Member since Apr 2014
5480 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:15 pm to
quote:

I just refuse to believe that 94% of the population would fight for the other 6% to keep and maintain their wealth.


You must not read much history then. Because it's basically this repeated ad nauseam.

Posted by Squedunk
Around Dumb People
Member since Jun 2008
681 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:15 pm to
False.
Posted by Jorts R Us
Member since Aug 2013
14877 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:16 pm to
You threads--Will we get a baker's dozen today?
Posted by sicboy
Because Awesome
Member since Nov 2010
77649 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:18 pm to
He has a long way to go to catch up to cad.
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
68447 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:20 pm to
True.

And some other stuff too.
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:20 pm to
quote:

before South Carolina officially seceded from the Union, Lincoln begged them to reconsider offering to allow them to keep slavery
well why would he want to? no slaves means more expensive cotton means no re-election. they just wanted to stop it from spreading because of representation it gave the south in congress. they wanted...needed cotton and the tariffs basically crushed demand and left supply over loaded.

war is good politically speaking, and perhaps he didn't think there would be another election beyond the next one. look at the power he amassed...who would give that up?
Posted by narddogg81
Vancouver
Member since Jan 2012
19717 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:21 pm to
Was fought over tax revenue, according to lincoln
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
20949 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:22 pm to
quote:

If there was no slavery, would the South have tried to secede? Probably not.



So why did the slave holding states of the North stay in the Union?
Posted by tigerfoot
Alexandria
Member since Sep 2006
56548 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:23 pm to
Robert E Lee said that the war would be avoided if every slave was freed.
Posted by DelU249
Austria
Member since Dec 2010
77625 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:30 pm to
quote:

So why did the slave holding states of the North stay in the Union?
because they didn't grow cotton.

anyone who believes the civil war was fought over the morality of slavery is a fool. the northeast was the population center by a wide margin. so no more slave states means less representation for such states in congress. it was about keeping power in the legislative branch which they used to control the southern economy...all of this created the issue of state vs. federal power to add to all of it.

slavery was the cause, but not to abolish it, not out of moral revulsion to it.

2 sides fighting for their piece of the pie...the abolition of slavery was a great thing, but freed slaves weren't functionally granted rights for another 100 years.
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 1:37 pm
Posted by HeadedToTheWoods
Sportsman's Paradise
Member since Dec 2013
1039 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:32 pm to
I don't give a shite what it was fought over. The reason has been defined as slavery and there's no need to discuss 1000x over.
Posted by IceTiger
Really hot place
Member since Oct 2007
26584 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:33 pm to
quote:


what say you?


Fought by whom?

Posted by HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Member since Feb 2017
12458 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:36 pm to
Ironically the south brought the Civil War on themselves 100 years prior when they insisted on the 3/5ths compromise.
Posted by DeafVallyBatnR
Member since Sep 2004
16891 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:38 pm to
False
Posted by sugar71
NOLA
Member since Jun 2012
9967 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:40 pm to
quote:

True or False...the civil war was fought over slavery.


Beyond silly that this has to be asked.

Proof of the Lost Cause non sense actually working on a sad minority of Neo Confederates and their sympathizers.
Posted by ELVIS U
Member since Feb 2007
9943 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:41 pm to
Mostly false, it was fought over state's rights, but slavery was a part of the equation.
Posted by Pecker
Rocky Top
Member since May 2015
16674 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:43 pm to
People in the south like to pretend that slavery did not play a major part in the split. Because it makes them feel better about their heritage and the south in general.

Posted by alphaandomega
Tuscaloosa
Member since Aug 2012
13658 posts
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:44 pm to
quote:

If there was no slavery, would the South have tried to secede? Probably not.

So the answer is yes.



Then why were the slaves in the south freed but not the ones in the North...
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 5Next pagelast page

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

FacebookTwitterInstagram