- 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 5/4/26 at 2:35 pm to RFK
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:35 pm to RFK
The slavery issue at that point in time was dying because of improved technology and market forces. Britain freed their slaves through peaceful means, as did other western countries. The overarching issue was that the federal government at that point seemed to only exist to protect Yankee mercantilist interests and they were taxing the South to do it. Lincoln was only on the ballot in a handful of states in 1860 and needed Union troops and electoral chicanery to win in 1864.
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 4:49 pm
0
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:36 pm to RFK
No
Slavery was a small part of it.
Slavery was a small part of it.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:36 pm to Red Stick Rambler
quote:
It made us an "is."
Replacing the Articles of Confederation with our current constitution did this
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Replacing the Articles of Confederation with our current constitution did this
Damn, if SFP had just been around in 1860 to explain this we could have avoided the Civil War!
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:42 pm to Joeypeeps787
Joeypeeps787 Yes this is what they called them at the time.
It is right there on the recruiting posters of 1861.
You see nothing in the posters about slavery at all in 1861.
Manpower becomes the issue before 1863, and then you see the posters about slavery.
It is right there on the recruiting posters of 1861.
You see nothing in the posters about slavery at all in 1861.
Manpower becomes the issue before 1863, and then you see the posters about slavery.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:42 pm to Ramblin Wreck
quote:
Does it make sense that parents in the north were sending their sons off to war to possibly die to abolish slavery, yet they had to march through states in the Union where slavery was legal until after the war ended? Don’t forget that the emancipation proclamation was essentially an executive order issued two years after the war started and restricted the freeing of slaves in only certain states, only the CSA states. Union states such as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware where slavery was still legal were exempt. Remember that there was no industry in the south to speak of. Ninety percent of the population were subsistence farmers, and 75% of the population in the south didn’t own slaves. The father and sons did the heavy work as subsistence farmers and joining the Confederate army meant they were leaving the farming to the women and children. Do you really think they would do that only in the name of slavery being that 75% didn’t even own a slave?
History is complicated. People like to pick easy single reasons for things. They are usually wrong when they do that.
Easy rebuttal is yes, they absolustely fought to defend slavery. The fact they didn't own slaves doesn't mean they did not desire to be wealthy enough to own slaves. Not owning slaves wasn't the end position of their life's wants. The South felt it was their right to have slavery. It's such a stupid argument to claim it wasn't about slavery by the South. The rank/file Southerners supported slavery and wanted slaves/would have slaves for themselves. Lincoln wasn't trying to end slavery everywhere, but he opposed it and wanted to stop its spread. He knew he couldn't/shouldn't abolish it with just a stroke of the pen (unlike recent and current Presidents). Knew it was a complicated process to try to stop its spread. Knew he needed the support of the border states so that he could then go about winning the war and somehow keep the Union together and stop the spread of slavery.
The North wasn't all in on abolition, but a substantial percentage found it evil, even if they were still racist about people who weren't white. And they obviously fought to keep the Union together.
None of this is difficult.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
I have actual proof and accounts of why my specific relative who was a captain in the confederate army was fighting. I have written accounts by him stating many times why he as fighting and the word slavery was never mentioned. It’s just like they who re-write history want you to think the 54th Massachusetts was some badass brigade. They weren’t.
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:43 pm to Red Stick Rambler
quote:
Damn, if SFP had just been around in 1860 to explain this we could have avoided the Civil War!
His party wanted slavery.
...and still do.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:44 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
His party wanted slavery.
...and still do.
The closest thing to my party didn't exist back then
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:46 pm to LSUDAN1
quote:rights to do what exactly?
The War of Northern Aggression was about state rights
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:47 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
No
Slavery was a small part of it.
The cause of war was succession; the cause of succession was slavery.
So it all depends on where you draw the line.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
BS
You're in favor of chattel slavery right now.
Only as a cheap source of labor.
You're in favor of chattel slavery right now.
Only as a cheap source of labor.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:48 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The cause of war was succession; the cause of succession was slavery.
I used to feel sorry for uneducated brainwashed individuals but I got older and now dgaf.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:48 pm to RFK
What are the chances that the yankees will take all of the people they fought to free and move them north so they can become enlightened? I see no reason they dont want a few million of these people in their city streets and neighborhoods.
Right?
Right?
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:51 pm to RobertFootball
RobertFootball I have read 1000's of soldier's letter from the war and you do not see slavery in the southern letters.
It is about right, and the main right is they speak of is the right to leave the Union.
Do not think of the Union as we see it today, your loyalty is to the state not the Union.
This is why many fought for the south that were in the US Army at the start of the war.
Washington DC is not the powerhouse it is today. And America is seen by Europe as a back water country of no means.
Europe needed the cotton and not much else.
It is about right, and the main right is they speak of is the right to leave the Union.
Do not think of the Union as we see it today, your loyalty is to the state not the Union.
This is why many fought for the south that were in the US Army at the start of the war.
Washington DC is not the powerhouse it is today. And America is seen by Europe as a back water country of no means.
Europe needed the cotton and not much else.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:54 pm to tigger1
quote:
What I like is you have teachers today teaching that up to 90% of southern families owned slaves. It is less than 6% s the price of a slave was far out of the means of the average framer.
And they have never taught that thousands of free blacks own slaves or that the first federally recognized slave master was a black man.
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:57 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
You're in favor of chattel slavery right now.
Only as a cheap source of labor.
Holy shite
Posted on 5/4/26 at 3:00 pm to SOSFAN
Yes, the owner of the largest amount of slaves in Louisiana is a black woman.
Many slaves are owned in Louisiana and South Carolina by freed men and women. Some of these freed families date to the 1780s in both states..
Many slaves are owned in Louisiana and South Carolina by freed men and women. Some of these freed families date to the 1780s in both states..
Posted on 5/4/26 at 3:03 pm to RFK
Not only slavery.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 3:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
Don't pretend to act shocked.
Your entire Marxist party wants this.
Your entire Marxist party wants this.
Page 5 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News