Was the Civil War about slavery? (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The bulk of Mississippi's declaration of secession:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution [slavery] commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling [against slavery] increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility [to slavery] dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It [the hostility to slavery] has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice [against slavery].

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

Yeah -- nothing about slavery there.

 

[Leviathan]

The Civil War was being fought in Kansas long before a single shot was fired on Fort Sumter.

Just thought that I'd throw that in there.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

there is nothing civil about war

 

[FlapJacks]

Very generally speaking...

It was about slavery to the south.

To the north, and more specifically Lincoln, it was about secession.

Lincoln did win an election as an abolitionist.....

 

[jonessed]

Very generally speaking...

It was about slavery to the south.

To the north, and more specifically Lincoln, it was about secession.

Lincoln did win an election as an abolitionist.....

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Those who voted YES need to do some digging beyond your high school textbooks and your Doris Kearns Goodwin books.

I would ask you to expound on what you think the Civil War was about, but you suck so I won't.

I would ask you to defend Doris Kearns Goodwin and government school textbooks, but you're a hopeless statist hack, so I wont.

This doesn't even make any sense. Are you drunk already?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Not to hijack - but what's the problem with Doris Kearns Goodwin?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Not to hijack - but what's the problem with Doris Kearns Goodwin?

Well, she's a Red Sox fan....

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Not to hijack - but what's the problem with Doris Kearns Goodwin?

She doesn't believe government is pure evil.

 

[Fennis]

Very generally speaking...

It was about slavery to the south.

To the north, and more specifically Lincoln, it was about secession.

Lincoln did win an election as an abolitionist.....

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.

Other than abolishing slavery.

 

[proninja]

Very generally speaking...

It was about slavery to the south.

To the north, and more specifically Lincoln, it was about secession.

Lincoln did win an election as an abolitionist.....

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.

Other than abolishing slavery.

Your avatar gives me the jumpy&quo

 

[chet]

I never studied it so I put slavery.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Has anyone said "your face is about slavery"?

Because it is.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Not to hijack - but what's the problem with Doris Kearns Goodwin?

Well, she's a Red Sox fan....

Hey now

 

[tdoss]

Always find it hilarious that people boil that war down to just slavery.

Like that many people were fighting simply for their right to own slaves...when they'd never be able to afford to own a slave.

It's like me picking up my weapons to fight just for Mark Cuban's right to own the Mavericks.

 

[cstu]

Always find it hilarious that people boil that war down to just slavery.

Like that many people were fighting simply for their right to own slaves...when they'd never be able to afford to own a slave.

It's like me picking up my weapons to fight just for Mark Cuban's right to own the Mavericks.

The primary reasons Southerners fought for the Confederacy: peer pressure - respect from both men (honor) and women (good luck getting laid if you refused to defend your women) and pride.

Simplistically, it worked like this...

1. Northerners branded by the rich as trying to destroy the Southern way of life and what your parents created

2. South secedes and war is delared

3. Southerners feel compelled to fight to defend their land against evil Northerners out of a sense of duty and pride

Once again, like every single war in history, the poor were manipulated into fighting for the rich (goes for the North as well)..

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I think there's a difference between the reason an individual enlists to fight, and the underlying cause of a war.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

What caused the civil was probably the economic and social differences between the North and the South. The South had a single crop economy (cotton) that was much more dependent on slave labor.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Very generally speaking...

It was about slavery to the south.

To the north, and more specifically Lincoln, it was about secession.

Lincoln did win an election as an abolitionist.....

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.

Other than abolishing slavery.

Well, he was an abolitionist but he didn't fight the Civil War in order to abolish slavery.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Always find it hilarious that people boil that war down to just slavery.

Like that many people were fighting simply for their right to own slaves...when they'd never be able to afford to own a slave.

It's like me picking up my weapons to fight just for Mark Cuban's right to own the Mavericks.

I think there's a difference between the reason an individual enlists to fight, and the underlying cause of a war.

 

[D_House]

Always find it hilarious that people boil that war down to just slavery.

Like that many people were fighting simply for their right to own slaves...when they'd never be able to afford to own a slave.

It's like me picking up my weapons to fight just for Mark Cuban's right to own the Mavericks.

Non slave owners also had reasons to support slavery.

 

[proninja]

I used to be open to this debate until I heard Ken Burns speak on it once. Came away 100% convinced it was about slavery and nothing more.

Do you have a link?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Always find it hilarious that people boil that war down to just slavery.

Like that many people were fighting simply for their right to own slaves...when they'd never be able to afford to own a slave.

It's like me picking up my weapons to fight just for Mark Cuban's right to own the Mavericks.

Non slave owners also had reasons to support slavery.

That was because Industrialization happened mainly in the North.

 

[jonessed]

Very generally speaking...

It was about slavery to the south.

To the north, and more specifically Lincoln, it was about secession.

Lincoln did win an election as an abolitionist.....

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.

Other than abolishing slavery.

He said during the election.Lincoln really wasn't ever an abolitionist as it was defined for the time, but that's probably not worth discussing. He definitely didn't run as an abolitionist.

 

[Ash]

Never studied this seriously, only in pieces here and there and I'm not an American so nothing in school etc. But one thing that struck me in the reading I did at one point about the leadup to the Civil War was the tide of influence in the Union shifting from South to North. Up until a few years before the war, the vast majority of Presidents, Supreme Court Justices etc had been from the South, but as the population growth, increasing level of industrialisation and territorial expansion boosted the Northern "bloc" the South was losing control over the direction of Federal politics and laws.

Slavery was one of the battleground issues, but so were differences around the South's agricultural export based economy and desire to spend their export income importing from Europe, while the North wanted trade restrictions to develop local industrial capacity.

Seemed like a lot of the conflict in the leadup came from the South trying to keep hold of political control over issues including slavery but others as well, then seceded when they were no longer able to achieve that.

That's what I've always thought anyway, interested in the views of those who've looked at this more than I have.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Now imagine slavery as it was then ,still existed today

 

[Cjw_55106]

Now imagine if they were black.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Now imagine if they were black.

how about white slaves...turn the tables

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The bulk of Mississippi's declaration of secession:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution [slavery] commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling [against slavery] increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility [to slavery] dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It [the hostility to slavery] has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice [against slavery].

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

Yeah -- nothing about slavery there.

I think this is really interesting. Note the emphasis on the Compromise of 1820. A few things happened:

• Louisiana Purchase. Louisiana was southern, incredibly huge and slave-based, but then it wasn't.
• The Mexico War, which led to all that territory coming into play, but no rules surrounding how they would be handled. The same thing that happened with the LA Purchase happened again, the TX/New Mexico territory was huge (it went up to Idaho), slave-based, then split up and narrowed down.
• The compromise was abrogated when California entered as a huge territory, taking up the whole then populated west coast and all ports, as a free state, including most of it above the Compromise line.
• Then the Nebraska Territory was split up, the Compromise was again abrogated, new rules yet again drawn up.
• The Republicans split the Democratic Party taking the Southerners out of any shot at the presidency or cabinet.
• I may be wrong but along with the abrogations even states like NM below the 1820 line were going to be allowed to vote to determine if they would be free. Basically everyone was looking at a bloody Kansas on a state by state level across the whole of the western US below NE. How awful that would have been.

It's a really hard call, because so much pain and damage and death and maiming was inflicted in that war, it's still our worst. But things did happen along the way to exacerbate things well before 1860. Basically if the rule of law had been adhered to, secession could have been avoided, but obviously the rule of law at issue was 100% about slavery.

 

[Flying V]

Now imagine if they were black.

how about white slaves...turn the tables

I tried it once. It was just too kinky.

 

[Zigg]

Now imagine if they were black.

how about white slaves...turn the tables

Go warm my bed, Susan.

 

[Fat Nick]

It really just depends on how you split that apple...

Was it about Slavery? Sure...but WHY?

Mainly because the Southern economy relied heavily on slave labor. They weren't industrializing like the north. Take away the slaves and the southern plantations go belly-up. So...it was really about money. Slavery was just the means. If someone said that they'd permanently increase the price paid on cotton, tobacco, and other slave crops by 50% if they abolished slavery, meaning that the South could profit and pay labor, I bet the issue would have been a lot less heated.

It was about slavery because slavery was what drove the economy - which was what put $ in the pockets of the powerful Southerners. Soooo...the only correct answer is Smoo.

 

[SWC]

Those who voted YES need to do some digging beyond your high school textbooks and your Doris Kearns Goodwin books.

are you just setting this up so eventually you can say how about them apples and feel superior come on brohan i just called you out you can admit it take that to the bank bromigo