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

quote:

---

However, most did not know how to confront it due to the fact that it was so interwoven into the Southern economy by the middle of the 19th century.

---

Jefferson said in 1820 slavery was like holding a wolf by the ears.

Also, it was easier for the North to condemn the South when they really had no use for slave labor.

The abolitionists were a bunch of assholes in that they believed it was morally wrong, but also didn't want them migrating North. They need to be free, but stay where they are.

quote:

---

Secession was 100% a direct result of the institution of slavery. All you have to do is read the words of the men who voted on secession if you want definitive proof. The Civil War does not happen without secession, and secession does not happen without slavery. So the answer is yes. The Civil War was fought because of slavery.

Now it is also true that many men within the Confederate army didn't own slaves and most of them weren't themselves fighting to preserve slavery. However, the politicians who ran the Confederate government were most certainly fighting to preserve slavery. It was a massive, moneymaking enterprise that was worth hundreds of billions of dollars in today's dollars to the Southern economy.

---

someone who actually understands a thing or two...

quote:

---

(No message)

---

The most eloquent post in this thread so far.

quote:

---

The most eloquent post in this thread so far.

---

Third most… I posted twice before this. (KIDDING )

quote:

---

Easy to say and leave at that.

---

Its easy because its true. Look, im not judging anyone's ancestors. Im not going to apply a modern morality to people of the past, nor do I think that anyone today should be held responsible for it. Im just saying it was the main reason (99%) the Civil War happened.

Im proud of this country. No other nation on earth shed its own blood to do away with the system. That applies to the boys on both sides, all Americans.

I think the question you mean to ask is “Did the South secede to preserve the institution of slavery?”

To which the answer is obviously yes. The articles of secession make it abundantly clear that slavery was the primary reason for secession.

However: It was clear from the outset that the South couldn’t win without international assistance. France was one of the most obvious and best choices - except one problem - France had outlawed slavery in their territories in 1848.

It would be very difficult to convince France to support a foreign war to preserve slavery, so during the war there was an intentional and concerted effort to re-frame the issue in ways that would appeal to French sensibilities.

So now the war is about “State’s rights” and not “Hooray for slavery!” And also why the historical record is somewhat more convoluted than it otherwise would have been.

My dirt poor farmer relatives in Western North Carolina didn’t fight in the war against northern aggression because an few rich white men in the Deep South could own a bunch of slaves.

Neither the US Civil War nor any other major conflict in history was fought for any single reason.

frick reductive historical analysis.

There’s a thousand reasons for the Civil War. Yes, slavery—whether directly or indirectly—was one of the larger ones if not the single biggest factor.

There’s no merit in trying to assign some sort of percentage to it.

quote:

---

He proposed colonization plans that included relocating African Americans to places like Liberia and Haiti

---

I'm guessing those countries declined his generous offer?

And we think we are smarter...