Understanding who fought for what and why is a fine point, but I always end up returning to the bludgeoning notion,
No slavery- no civil war.
When asked why they were fighting, Confederate troops almost invariably said because the Union invaded The South.
I agree with you on that point TRH, but am saying it doesn't change anything.
I never believed Southerners felt any patriotic zeal to specifically let a small minority keep slaves. Nor do I believe the majority of Northerners were going to enlist in order to end slavery in some state not their own- although there were certainly abolitionists willing to do so.
The entire power balance issue stemmed from slavery to such point that it was determining which territories became states or not. Not some other states right. Slavery. Not the sole reason for the war, nor even perhaps the reason most fought in it, but the sparking reason for the power struggles that led to it.
Not sure how anyone could say otherwise.
Last edited by kenjs1; 01/01/24.
When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honors are something to be ashamed of . Confucius
Lincoln decreed that a State which voluntarily joined the Union couldn't voluntarily *leave* the Union.
Russia had Stalin. America had Lincoln.
I had a college professor, a southerner ironically, who stated the following;
"We the People"
NOT "We the States"
He also made the claim that no prominent Southerner prior to the war gave a speech that cited states rights or tariffs as a reason for secession, the only reason given was slavery.
Lincoln didn't argue against slavery. His entire focus was "to preserve the Union".
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
I take it you’ve never read or listened to the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
Yes, during most of his Presidency Lincoln’s overwhelming concern was the preservation of the Union because it was falling apart. But, to say Lincoln didn’t argue against slavery is a statement profoundly ignorant of US history.
^^^This is true. Good post. And in fact, Lincoln repeatedly said if he could preserve the Union by keeping slavery, he would do so. Lincoln was adamant (consistent with the Republican Party platform) that slavery where it was then lawful was not to be interfered with. The issue was that the South wanted to extend slavery into places it had never been (the new territories) and into locations where the Founders explicitly forbade it. But once the South attacked the North, all bets were off. Recall that 5 states had seceded before Lincoln ever took office. Why? Did Lincoln intend to interfere with slavery in the south? Quite the opposite; he and the Republicans intended to leave it alone. Of course, their belief was that as the nation grew and as it added new, strictly free territories, slavery would eventually wither and die on the vine. That possibility was intolerable to the South and what was also intolerable to them is that Lincoln expressed moral disapproval of slavery. That was intolerable to southerners who desired to transmute slavery from a necessary evil to a positive good and as we've seen from no less an authority that the vice president of the new Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, slavery was indeed the reason the South seceded, seized federal property and preemptively attacked Fort Sumter. Slavery was the cause of the civil war. "But for" the issue of slavery, the South would not have attacked the North and would not have seceded.
All those deaths of soldiers that hardly wanted war. All the parents , sisters and brothers had to endure the death of family members. For what? Many are living on gov. assistance and living in 3rd world ghettoes . They have been like this for so long , they dont even know they are still slaves. A few are smart enough to know though... " The blacks have been voting democrat for 100 yrs. and they're still poor." Charles Barkley the basketball player said that .
Last edited by ihookem; 01/01/24.
But the fruits of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,faithfulness, Gentleness and self control. Against such things there is no law. Galations 5: 22&23
All those deaths of soldiers that hardly wanted war. All the parents , sisters and brothers had to endure the death of family members. For what? Many are living on gov. assistance and living in 3rd world ghettoes . They have been like this for so long , they dont even know they are still slaves. A few are smart enough to know though... " The blacks have been voting democrat for 100 yrs. and they're still poor." Charles Barkley the basketball player said that .
Yes. The Democrats traded enslavement on "the Plantation" for a new form of slavery---enslavement to welfare and to the federal government. Recall that blacks overwhelmingly voted Republican until the New Deal and recall also that LBJ was very explicit that his "New Society" programs would successfully buy off the black vote and it has done just that, with disastrous consequences. Did you know that the divorce rate among blacks was lower during Jim Crow than it is now? Thanks Democrats.
the rebels werent fighting for slavery. they were fighting cause they got invaded. here are the real slave owners and the self chosen that owned the ships that brought them here
That is pure historical revisionism. The Vice President of the South, Alexander Stephens, was very explicit: slavery was the "but for" cause of the civil war.
That is pure historical revisionism. The Vice President of the South, Alexander Stephens, was very explicit: slavery was the "but for" cause of the civil war.
Read more. Talk less.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
the rebels werent fighting for slavery. they were fighting cause they got invaded. here are the real slave owners and the self chosen that owned the ships that brought them here
You are completely ignorant of historical fact. Five states seceded before Lincoln ever took office. The South seized all federal property in the south and attacked Fort Sumter. The South refused to be bound by the results of a free and fair election, resorting to bullets when they didn't get the result they desired at the ballot box. The entire issue was the defeat at the polls of the Southern desire to extend slavery (and thus despotism) into the new territories in explicit contravention of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
That is pure historical revisionism. The Vice President of the South, Alexander Stephens, was very explicit: slavery was the "but for" cause of the civil war.
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Originally Posted by mrmeener
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Regardless of the cause, the South still had the right and the abomination we have today is a direct result of Lincoln’s crimes.
No, the South did not have the right and it was the South who is the criminal, not Lincoln. It was only Lincoln who was faithful to the Constitution.
by arresting 100's of newsman shutting down any paper that was against the war? arresting members of congress and judges?
Yes, and I will explain why later.
judah benjamin a jew was the sec of war and the sec of state for the rebels he was also called "the brains of the confederacy". he was trying to protect his fellow tribal members who owned 78% of the slaves while 99.7% of the dirt poor rebels owned slaves. do you think all those guys in picketts suicidal charge owned slaves or were fighting because they were invaded
Do some actually think Southerners would have still shelled Ft Sumter to start the war if slavery had ended before 1800?
If so, what States Rights issue would have eventually led to it since it wouldn't have been slavery?
When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honors are something to be ashamed of . Confucius
Regardless of the cause, the South still had the right and the abomination we have today is a direct result of Lincoln’s crimes.
No, the South did not have the right and it was the South who is the criminal, not Lincoln. It was only Lincoln who was faithful to the Constitution.
by arresting 100's of newsman shutting down any paper that was against the war? arresting members of congress and judges?
Yes, and I will explain why later.
Don’t bother you statist phuque. No one gives a schit about your retarded opinions.
Take your Harry Jaffa bullschit and stick it up your ass.
First of all, it's not Harry Jaffa. But more importantly, what are you afraid of. Your fear and insecurity in your position are palpable. The truth will set you free!
Regardless of the cause, the South still had the right and the abomination we have today is a direct result of Lincoln’s crimes.
No, the South did not have the right and it was the South who is the criminal, not Lincoln. It was only Lincoln who was faithful to the Constitution.
If the Southern States didn't have the right to secede, then the Colonies didn't either.
The colonies didn't secede. They revolted. The distinction is important because even the South acknowledged their's was not a revolution because they knew they didn't have grounds for a revolution. Its called the "glorious revolution" and not the "glorious secession" for a reason Hawkeye!
