- 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: Was the Civil War Fought Because of Slavery? It Depends on Which Side You View
Posted on 5/5/26 at 8:17 pm to Narax
Posted on 5/5/26 at 8:17 pm to Narax
quote:
... He went to a Spa 2 years before dying because his health was that bad.
Now youve taken to lying to defend your biased view of the War. Wanna know why he moved to Europe?
quote:
The Charleston Daily Courier
Tue, May 25, 1869
Page 4
The private library of General Robert Anderson, of Fort Sumter notoriety, was sold at auction in New York on Thursday last
The Philadelphia Enquirer reported that Anderson said he couldnt live in America on half pay ($4,125 or $110,000 equivalent to today)
Plus, Abner Doubleday, the baseball guy, sent word to Lincoln telling him that Anderson was incapable of doing his duty. Abner was under the command of Anderson at Moultrie. Doubleday insisted they move into Sumter. When Anderson finally relented, Abner fired two rounds into a local hotel, instead of the Confederate garrisons. Because they had disrespected him there
Anderson surrendered the next day
So yes, Anderson was weak and Doubleday's stupidity drove the US headlong into war
quote:
Through his glass Doubleday could see many spectators on the beach and piazza watching the duel between Sumter and Moultrie. “I saw no reason why the mere lowering of the flag should prevent us from firing at them,” wrote Doubleday.
Doubleday went on: “Just before the attack was made upon us…I aimed two forty-two pounder balls at the upper story. The crashing of the shot, which went through the whole length of the building among the clapboards and interior partitions, must have been something fearful to those who were within. They came rushing out in furious haste, and tumbled over each other until they reached the bottom of the front steps, in one withering, tumultuous mass.”
2
Posted on 5/5/26 at 8:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No rhetorical conflict exists with those 2 positions.
Well yeah, not if you ignore it. SMH
Every argument in this thread has included morality as the attached theme to slavery. Slavery in and of itself demands consideration of morality nowadays.
The problem lies in folks making morality the primary consideration and oversimplifying the many complex and nuanced causes of the Civil War.
And just like that, I’ve run out of food for the troll.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 9:06 pm to Cuz413
quote:
Because you quoted that "no hostilities" line from RobbBobb post on Page 10 and framed it as if I said it. I never said that. You might have too many pages open
Check the screenshot lol. You did quote robbbob when replying to me, but thats fine.
quote:
But I will say that in reading the linked books, tensions were high from both sides, but there were no hostilities. Confederates did keep eyes on Unionists at all times, the cannons at the Forts were pointed at Charleston.
quote:
South Carolina Governor Francis Wilkinson Pickens ordered the State militia to surround the federal arsenal.
“On the 7th instant I received an order from Colonel Gardner, commanding troops in the harbor, to issue to him all of the fixed ammunition for small-arms (percussion caps, primers, &c) at this arsenal, such a step being advisable, in his estimation, for the better protection of the property in view of the excitement now existing in this city and State. Being allowed no discretion in the matter, his order being peremptory, I proceed to obey it on the afternoon of the 8th.”
Frederick C. Humphrey, Military Storekeeper Ordnance, Commanding, to C.H.K. Craig, Chief of Ordnance, U.S.A., Washington, D.C., November 10, 1860
quote:
The arsenal remained under guard by both Federal and South Carolina troops until December 30, 1860, at which time the South Carolina militia surrounded the arsenal and demanded its immediate surrender.
Charleston, December 30, 1860 – 10½ o’clock a.m.
Sir: I herewith demand an immediate surrender of the U.S. Arsenal at this place and under your charge, and a delivery to me of the keys and contents of the arsenals, magazines, &c. I am already proceeding to occupy it with a strong armed detachment of troops. I make the demand in the name of the State of South Carolina, and by virtue of an order from its governor, a copy of which is inclosed.
Very respectfully,
John Cunningham
Colonel Seventeenth Reg. Inf., S.C.M.
--------------------------------------------------
Sir: This arsenal has to-day been taken by force of arms. What disposition am I to make of my command?
Frederick C. Humphreys to Capt. Maynadier, In charge of Ordnance Bureau, Charleston, S.C., December 30, 1860
Federal troops withdrew from the arsenal and relocated to Fort Sumter.
Any blind man could see what was about to happen.
quote:
For the moment it was thought best to turn back, but the men took off their hats and coats, concealing their arms and belts, so as to give themselves the appearance of workmen, and the boat pushed on.
Looking at Doubleday's words, he ordered them to take off their coats (in his case he opened his coat to hide the buttons) and to hide the muskets.
There is a not fine line between being stealthily in uniform and hoping the other side makes a mistake and not being in uniform.
They were all in uniform, they started the trip in uniform and took off their coats while still in uniform, with Doubleday only opening his coat.
To note I'm unsure why the confederate apologists think taking off coats while in uniform was a war crime, but I don't think you were making that point.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 9:29 pm to DByrd2
quote:
Every argument in this thread has included morality as the attached theme to slavery.
Absolutely incorrect. Strawman central.
quote:
Slavery in and of itself demands consideration of morality nowadays.
The problem lies in folks making morality the primary consideration and oversimplifying the many complex and nuanced causes of the Civil War.
And this is a good example of why strawmen are bad. You're arguing against something that wasn't argued, to make the point you can't make responding to the actual arguments.
This is a good educational opportunity for the board to learn why they shouldn't use strawman fallacies.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 11:06 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Now youve taken to lying to defend your biased view of the War. Wanna know why he moved to Europe?
...
Uh he had malaria and war wounds.
quote:
Anderson was given varied assignments ranging from isolated frontier forts to unusual settings. His initial mission was to assist his brother, Richard, then first minister to Columbia, at a South American Congress. They experienced an arduous journey to reach Cartagena. Robert became seriously ill with malaria, which would trouble him for the rest of his life. Robert picked up important diplomatic experience, but sadly Richard died of yellow fever on their return trip home.
Cholera
quote:
Anderson personally swore Abraham Lincoln, a captain in an Illinois militia company, into service for the Black Hawk War.
Anderson also came down with cholera during this campaign, and yet he still cared for other men afflicted with the same illness.
Bullet wounds
quote:
He was wounded three times in the battle of Molina Del Rey, the most serious being a bullet wound to the chest. Anderson initially refused medical attention and continued his duties directing his men until the battled ended, after which he collapsed.
This guy gave his service to the United States.
quote:
He remained on the staff of the general commanding the Eastern Department in New York until 1869. He then traveled to France in search of a treatment for his failing health. He died in Nice in 1871 and was given a full military funeral by the French government; his body was returned to the United States for burial at West Point.
You do know there were a lot of bitter ex slave owners in Charleston when he left for France.
Sources
https://emergingcivilwar.com/2025/08/05/book-review-hero-of-fort-sumter-the-extraordinary-life-of-robert-anderson/
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Anderson-American-army-officer
Before you pivot from pissing on veterans Graves to Doubleday, can you admit how you have been repeatedly wrong?
What are your sources? Where are you getting your alt history.
This post was edited on 5/5/26 at 11:09 pm
Posted on 5/5/26 at 11:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Strawman central.
You weren’t even a party to the conversation I was having. Then you interject, try to derail where we were at, and claim victory…
You really suck at this, and additionally must be VERY fun a parties…
Go try to flex on others. You can’t have a conversation about the causes of the Civil War with anyone and not expect morality to be brought up and/or implied heavily.
Based on your body of work (stated thusly because eleventy billion posts is a feat, despite the relatively low intelligence on display therein), I’m good on education if it is coming from you.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 11:47 pm to DByrd2
Greed and the desire for power are the motives behind most wars.
This post was edited on 5/5/26 at 11:49 pm
Posted on 5/6/26 at 9:24 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Doubleday went on: “Just before the attack was made upon us…I aimed two forty-two pounder balls at the upper story. The crashing of the shot, which went through the whole length of the building among the clapboards and interior partitions, must have been something fearful to those who were within. They came rushing out in furious haste, and tumbled over each other until they reached the bottom of the front steps, in one withering, tumultuous mass.”
US General Doubleday is a War Criminal because firing into a civilian hotel full of people when the hotel has no military purpose is a war crime, and I believe it was a war crime back when Doubleday ordered this shoot.
Union soldiers committed many War Crimes during the US Civil War, and even long after the war ended, US soldiers committed War Crimes against Southern civilians and civilian property.
Thank goodness US military personnel are better trained these days - trained to know what is a War Crime.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 9:30 am to Champagne
It's why civil wars are the least civil.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 9:58 am to goatmilker
The "It was Immoral" part of the argument is meritorious and belongs in the conversation, but, as we argue that point, IMHO it's very important to consider whether in 1860, the Religion followed by most Slaveowners declared Slavery to be Immoral.
If the answer is "No", then, as a point of scholarship, IMHO we must accept the point that the Slaveholders themselves rationally believed that they were acting in a moral and Christian manner, with regard to the notion of actually owning other human beings.
I think it's reasonable to take the position that your average Slaveowner back then believed that as long as you treated your human property in a humane and moral manner, you were OK with God. I'm not sure, but, didn't most Slaveowners teach their Slaves to be Christians and learn the Bible, even if they didn't read it?
But I'll stick with my opinion that just about every cause purported to be "THE" cause of the War were all one of the many reasons for the Civil War.
PS My own personal opinion is that most Union soldiers felt that fighting to preserve the integrity of the Union and the USA was the main reason for fighting. Patriotism for the USA was a major motivation for the Yankee soldiers as a whole. If the Union soldier was a new immigrant from Germany or some other foreign country, most would be motivated to fight for their new country the USA.
If the answer is "No", then, as a point of scholarship, IMHO we must accept the point that the Slaveholders themselves rationally believed that they were acting in a moral and Christian manner, with regard to the notion of actually owning other human beings.
I think it's reasonable to take the position that your average Slaveowner back then believed that as long as you treated your human property in a humane and moral manner, you were OK with God. I'm not sure, but, didn't most Slaveowners teach their Slaves to be Christians and learn the Bible, even if they didn't read it?
But I'll stick with my opinion that just about every cause purported to be "THE" cause of the War were all one of the many reasons for the Civil War.
PS My own personal opinion is that most Union soldiers felt that fighting to preserve the integrity of the Union and the USA was the main reason for fighting. Patriotism for the USA was a major motivation for the Yankee soldiers as a whole. If the Union soldier was a new immigrant from Germany or some other foreign country, most would be motivated to fight for their new country the USA.
This post was edited on 5/6/26 at 10:04 am
Posted on 5/6/26 at 10:00 am to goatmilker
quote:
It's why civil wars are the least civil.
Only this wasn't a civil war
Posted on 5/6/26 at 11:00 am to Champagne
quote:
because firing into a civilian hotel full of people when the hotel has no military purpose is a war crime, and I believe it was a war crime back when Doubleday ordered this shoot.
Why the lies!
That ... covers hours, the hours during which
quote:
On April 12, 1861, at 4:30 in the morning, nineteen different Southern batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter. The garrison in the fort did not immediately respond. The men had roll call in the bombproofs and then had breakfast of pork and water. At 7 a.m. Anderson ordered Doubleday to divide the company into three details to man the guns in shifts. Their targets were to be the batteries on Morris Island and Sullivan’s Island.
After that
quote:
Captain Doubleday sighted and fired the first Federal shot in retaliation at around 7:30 a.m. “In aiming the first gun fired against the rebellion,”
That "hotel"
quote:
the Moultrie House. “Since the rebel occupation of Fort Moultrie,” he recorded, “this hotel had been used as a depot and barracks for the troops in the vicinity.”
Why back lies, that quote acts like the union shot first, it commits to a huge lie.
Where are you all getting your talking points? They are obviously designed to fool people.
https://emergingcivilwar.com/2026/04/20/doubledays-revenge/
Posted on 5/6/26 at 11:02 am to RFK
TLDR: The south fought to keep slavery, but the north did not fight to end it.
This post was edited on 5/6/26 at 11:05 am
Posted on 5/6/26 at 12:04 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
What in the actual frick? States seceded peacefully from the Union. Had they been allowed to continue, they would have eventually freed the slaves, as every other nation on the planet did, without bloodshed. Ole Abe wanted blood. And he got it. Lots of it
Even ignoring the issue of slavery, the idea of conflict-free secession is based on the very optimistic assumption that the North and South could peacefully coexist in perpetuity, without any other reason for bloodshed. Which I HIGHLY doubt would be the case.
There would be tremendous tension over control of the Mississippi River and over the borders, along with the general political, economic, and military tension of having a rival power in such close proximity.
Also, once the precedent has been set for Secession, you can’t assume that further fracturing within the South and North would not occur, and possibly further breakup and unification between other factions of States. That would be a massive weakness that would absolutely be exploited by enemies foreign and domestic. So we could be looking at potentially dozens of separate countries here, each with their own possible reasons for conflict.
The idea that the South would be allowed to peacefully secede is basically a fairy tale. It is incredibly rare, and maybe nonexistent in recent history, where a country allowed a region to unilaterally secede, without conflict.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 12:09 pm to Buryl
quote:
The idea that the South would be allowed to peacefully secede is basically a fairy tale. It is incredibly rare, and maybe nonexistent in recent history, where a country allowed a region to unilaterally secede, without conflict.
Yep, the union was most definitely the aggressor.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 3:37 pm to MizzouBS
3,375 is not just a few...
A very good book on the subject is "Black masters : a free family of color in the old South" about William "April" Ellison of South Carolina.
LINK
A very good book on the subject is "Black masters : a free family of color in the old South" about William "April" Ellison of South Carolina.
LINK
quote:
By 1830, there were approximately 3,775 free black slaveholders in the South who owned a total of about 12,760 slaves...the Southern slave population at the time was around 2.3 million people. [4] 80% of the black slaveholders were located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 4:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:What are you even talking about.
The problem lies in folks making morality the primary consideration and oversimplifying the many complex and nuanced causes of the Civil War.
And this is a good example of why strawmen are bad. You're arguing against something that wasn't argued, to make the point you can't make responding to the actual arguments.
Nearly everything the amoral North "did to" the South legislatively had to do with justification bathed in self-perceived moral superiority.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 4:21 pm to DByrd2
quote:
You weren’t even a party to the conversation I was having.
Irrelevant. This is a message board. I can point out bad rhetoric/logic if I'm engaging directly with someone or if I see it elsewhere.
You also posted the straw man in response to me.
quote:
You can’t have a conversation about the causes of the Civil War with anyone and not expect morality to be brought up and/or implied heavily.
Except in this thread, where you just randomly threw it out there in response to ghosts, apparently.
quote:
despite the relatively low intelligence on display therein
Dunning Kruger Effect
Posted on 5/6/26 at 4:22 pm to Buryl
quote:
There would be tremendous tension over control of the Mississippi River and over the borders, along with the general political, economic, and military tension of having a rival power in such close proximity.
Also, once the precedent has been set for Secession, you can’t assume that further fracturing within the South and North would not occur, and possibly further breakup and unification between other factions of States. That would be a massive weakness that would absolutely be exploited by enemies foreign and domestic. So we could be looking at potentially dozens of separate countries here, each with their own possible reasons for conflict.
The idea that the South would be allowed to peacefully secede is basically a fairy tale. It is incredibly rare, and maybe nonexistent in recent history, where a country allowed a region to unilaterally secede, without conflict.
Sadly these statements are applicable in contemporary conversation and should be read and understood by many people who argue for some sort of split/secession today.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 4:24 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
What are you even talking about.
He made a strawman (his comments about morality-based arguments)
Then he argued against that strawman to make the point he was unable to make in the actual discussion.
It was a good example of how strawman fallacies are used for that exact goal.
I explained this in the post you quoted. In fact, I almost copied and pasted it b/c the point was very simple and direct.
quote:
Nearly everything the amoral North "did to" the South legislatively had to do with justification bathed in self-perceived moral superiority.
And now you're playing off his strawman and the digression it created, clearly b/c you also want to make a point you can't do in the actual conversation being hand.
Page 15 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News