re: Was the Civil War Fought Because of Slavery? It Depends on Which Side You View

quote:

---

State’s rights to own slaves, sure

---

Yes, and no.
It sounds like your teachers were quite simplistic in their approach. You'd have to decide whether that was due to the teachers themselves, or their perception of classroom comprehension in those instances.

In terms of history, the national breakdown was "slave states" versus "free states." By definition "slave states" versus "free states" would seem to be "all about slavery." The animus inherent in that national divide, and associated northern entitlement based on congressional numbers, increasingly leading to partisan anti-southern legislative outcomes. Those would only have worsened with time. They extended well beyond slavery. Concern over increasingly disproportionate representation led to the Missouri compromise, etc. Ultimately, such concerns overwhelmed diplomacy, and led to the Civil War.

Again, given the simplistic approach you were exposed to, and as slavery remained Constitutional, there was no rational basis for the South to secede in order to preserve slavery. So the contention of "slavery only" doesn't hold water. At its root, the concern was an imbalance in representation, aka states' rights.

quote:

---

Then why did slavery continue in the well into the civil war?

---

Because the South had not been whipped yet

quote:

---

Yes, and no.
It sounds like your teachers were quite simplistic in their approach. You'd have to decide whether that was due to the teachers themselves, or their perception of classroom comprehension in those instances.

---

The South seceded over slavery

Every state that gave reasons in their proclamations listed Slavery as the primary reason

The states even seceded damn near in order of slave populations

South Carolina (December 20, 1860) – ~57% enslaved
Mississippi (January 9, 1861) – ~55% enslaved
Florida (January 10, 1861) – ~44% enslaved
Alabama (January 11, 1861) – ~45% enslaved
Georgia (January 19, 1861) – ~44% enslaved
Louisiana (January 26, 1861) – ~47% enslaved
Texas (February 1, 1861) – ~30% enslaved
Virginia (April 17, 1861) – ~31% enslaved
Arkansas (May 6, 1861) – ~26% enslaved
North Carolina (May 20, 1861) – ~33% enslaved
Tennessee (June 8, 1861) – ~25% enslaved

quote:

---

Again, given the simplistic approach you were exposed to, and as slavery remained Constitutional, there was no rational basis for the South to secede in order to preserve slavery.

---

But they did

It is the entire mantra, and why they did it right after Lincoln, known abolitionist, was elected.

quote:

---

War Department

---

At the time of the secession crisis, the Secretary of War (John B. Floyd) was deliberately diverting weapons and munitions south so they could be possessed by the nascent Confederate government. Floyd ended up serving in the Confederate army. And then you had John C. Breckenridge, serving as Buchanan's VP, who also ended up fighting for the Confederacy.

The fact that the Buchanan administration was ordering Anderson to stay put where he was is no surprise given their leanings.

quote:

---

The fact that the Buchanan administration was ordering Anderson to stay put where he was is no surprise given their leanings.

---

All the more reason to blame rogue Union officers for poking the bear. They where told what would happen, they did it anyway, and it happened

quote:

---

Youre either drunk or in Jr Hi

---

You the guy who claimed

quote:

---

A piece of land donated to the Fed, but rescinded upon secession.

---

Which is incorrect as:
"On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States."

You also claimed

quote:

---

and seized it during a time of no hostilities

---

In spite of it being occupied by the federal government since before South Carolina seceded.

You claimed

quote:

---

whereas Napoleon didnt kill anyone over his lines,

---

Not realizing that he killed a ton of people in Europe to gain power and force Spain into giving back the Louisiana Territory, and then 80,000 Haitians before he decided he didn't want it.

You then insanely justify Washington and lee killing people to protect territory, but then approve of Lee Killing Mexicans to gain territory...

So we know you know nothing about History, with that in mind lets check your idiotic YouTube claims.
First Idiocy

quote:

---

With the secession of South Carolina two days earlier, the noose around them had tightened; the Carolinians now officially regarded them as alien interlopers, a foreign force upon the sovereign soil of their state. The Union commander, Maj. Robert Anderson was ordered to surrender if attacked

---

The first part of your statement comes from a New York Times Article, but this second part is no where to be found
https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/the-narrowest-of-loopholes/

The full quote you stole from (unwittingly)

quote:

---

With the secession of South Carolina two days earlier, the noose around them had tightened; the Carolinians now officially regarded them as alien interlopers, a foreign force upon the sovereign soil of their state. The Union commander, Maj. Robert Anderson, had done his best to buttress Moultrie’s inadequate defenses, but this seemed little more than shoring up a sand castle against the rising tide.

---

Nothing about Surrender, in fact you can read his order.

quote:

---

“The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.” [OR Series I, Vol 1, p. 90]

---

You can read his followup from the War Department

quote:

---

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, December 21, 1860. Major ANDERSON, First Artillery, Commanding Fort Moultrie, S.C.: SIR: In the verbal instructions communicated to you by Major Buell, you are directed to hold possession of the forts in the harbor of Charleston, and, if attacked, to defend yourself to the last extremity. Under these instructions, you might infer that you are required to make a vain and useless sacrifice of your own life and the lives of the men under your command, upon a mere point of honor. This is far from the President’s intentions. You are to exercise a sound military discretion on this subject. It is neither expected nor desired that you should expose your own life or that of your men in a hopeless conflict in defense of these forts. If they are invested or attacked by a force so superior that resistance would, in your judgment, be a useless waste of life, it will be your duty to yield to necessity, and make the best terms in your power. This will be the conduct of an honorable, brave, and humane officer, and you will be fully justified in such action. These orders are strictly confidential, and not to be communicated even to the officers under your command, without close necessity. Very respectfully, JOHN B. FLOYD. [OR, Series I, Vol 1, p. 103]

---

So yet again you are fantasizing about things that didn't happen.

What did Happen was that Floyd was a Traitor he sent a wink wink nod nod hoping that Anderson would surrender to:

quote:

---

Floyd added. It did not take much reading between the lines to grasp their purport: if the Carolinians sent any force against Moultrie that was more substantial than five dozen soldiers and a brass band, Anderson was to surrender without firing a shot.

---

Anderson was a Patriot, a true Patriot.

He received order from a Traitor who hoped he would turn traitor as well.

But the orders were only a hint and a wink, he obeyed the letter of the orders exactly in spite of your traitorous neo-confederate fantasies.

quote:

---

against the expressed desires of both the President of the US and the War Department.

---

I gave you the written (that's the expressed desires if you need help) orders.
It looks nothing like your claim.

quote:

---

The North started the Civil War

South Carolina only defended itself against invaders. Within 2 days after they left the Union

---

Do you realize now how utterly wrong you have been? Have you any inkling to how you have been fooled by others? How does it not make you angry at the people who fed you lies.

You say things I give you actual document text, it turns out again and again you were wrong, dead wrong.

Now what cesspool are you getting your chopped and doctored up NYTimes articles from?

You are obviously quoting somewhere!

Here is my link to the actual message text

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924077725913&view=1up&seq=24

quote:

---

He's blind to irony...

---

Notice he didn't respond

quote:

---

You keep saying this but its flat out wrong. I know youre retarded

---

Holy shite

quote:

---

They just keep ignoring these quotes exist for some reason

---

That's what boggles my mind.

I have no problem with the idea that the individual foot soldier was all hyped up on States Rights slogans.

But the written words of the very people who were in power and made secession happen were very clear that Slavery was the main issue, in both private letters, and public documents.

These people were able to speak for themselves and they did.

quote:

---

So 11 separate states seceded vis a vis no rational process.

---

The rationality was primarily based in protecting slavery.