The REAL cause of the Civil War [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The REAL cause of the Civil War


QNman
05-06-2012, 19:16
I have nothing to start with... Just giving the hijackers a place to continue this that isn't hijacking other threads.

Note: see how simple that was?

Forty or Bren, take it away. And please, gents, keep it civil (no pun intended).

Johnspark
05-06-2012, 19:23
The North wanted postmortem intercourse and the West wanted hoofed wool on call.

How's that for a "one-two" from left field....?

The Machinist
05-06-2012, 19:33
Because Lincoln was a tyrant, who ordered the Army to wage war against Americans, in order to force them to live under his rule.

smokin762
05-06-2012, 19:41
The North was oppressing the South by not allowing them to sell their goods at their own set prices. :steamed:

G17Jake
05-06-2012, 19:42
It was about national healthcare.... wasn't it?

smokin762
05-06-2012, 19:45
It was about national healthcare.... wasn't it?

That wouldn't be in a history book, it would more likely be in a crystal ball. :whistling:

Ruble Noon
05-06-2012, 19:47
Slavery
The balance of power in Washington
The role of the federal government vs. the states
The election of Lincoln

G17Jake
05-06-2012, 19:56
That wouldn't be in a history book, it would more likely be in a crystal ball. :whistling:

I hope not.

DOC44
05-06-2012, 20:07
States' Rights

Doc44

TKM
05-06-2012, 20:29
Civil discourse turned to shooting.:dunno:

janice6
05-06-2012, 20:35
Slavery
The balance of power in Washington
The role of the federal government vs. the states
The election of Lincoln


Except for Lincoln, we are still there.

JBnTX
05-06-2012, 21:04
States rights was the reason.
Slavery was the excuse.

juggy4711
05-06-2012, 21:14
States rights was the reason.
Slavery was the excuse.

JB is that you? I think you may have multiple personalities.

G17Jake
05-06-2012, 21:16
JB is that you? I think you may have multiple personalities.

:rofl:

HarlDane
05-06-2012, 22:11
The cause of the war was the North's desire to preserve the union and stop the southern states from breaking off.


As for why the southern states wanted to secede, their various Articles of Secession make their prime reason pretty clear.

Naelbis
05-07-2012, 00:03
Economics...namely the Northern industrial and shipping interests attempting to place restrictions on Southern agriculture exports to force them to use only Northern shipping and stop buying English and French manufactured goods. Political...namely the balance of power in Washington between the Northern industrial and Southern agricultural states. The slowly expanding role of the Federal government into primarily state affairs was also an issue here. Slavery...because at the time southern agriculture had not yet replaced slave labor with machines. Although given the advances in technology some southern political figures were already predicting the eventual end of slavery as a labor source. While the Northern states had slavery, it was not as important to their economics and thus less widespread numerically.

That pretty much hits the high notes although in a dramatically simplified way. Like any other societal upheaval the causes and events leading up to it were enormously complex.

TBO
05-07-2012, 01:26
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/TheeBadOne/TBO/propagandademotivationalposter.jpg

fortyofforty
05-07-2012, 04:11
Well, it certainly wasn't about slavery, if some here on GT are to be believed. Thanks for the history lesson! :rofl:

Oh, and pay no attention to what Jefferson Davis said. He didn't know what he was talking about, apparently.

barbedwiresmile
05-07-2012, 05:45
Economics...namely the Northern industrial and shipping interests attempting to place restrictions on Southern agriculture exports to force them to use only Northern shipping and stop buying English and French manufactured goods. Political...namely the balance of power in Washington between the Northern industrial and Southern agricultural states. The slowly expanding role of the Federal government into primarily state affairs was also an issue here. Slavery...because at the time southern agriculture had not yet replaced slave labor with machines. Although given the advances in technology some southern political figures were already predicting the eventual end of slavery as a labor source. While the Northern states had slavery, it was not as important to their economics and thus less widespread numerically.

That pretty much hits the high notes although in a dramatically simplified way. Like any other societal upheaval the causes and events leading up to it were enormously complex.

That's a pretty good synopsis. I would add two small but relevant bullet points:

4. Property: slave owners, including those who saw the increasing futility of the circumstance, wanted to be compensated for their economic investment (as opposed to taking a large loss as part of any wholesale emancipation by federal decree).

5. Demographics: the logistics of unwinding slavery was a topic of great debate. There was great concern regarding the sudden and overnight freeing of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of uneducated field hands, many of whom would be understandably bitter and hostile to their former 'masters', not to mention easily manipulated by emerging political powers. In retrospect, this concern - emancipation without a plan - has been vindicated.

barbedwiresmile
05-07-2012, 05:47
I figured Natty would be all over this. But I suppose pointing out the fallacies of federal propaganda with primary source material gets old.

rgregoryb
05-07-2012, 06:22
the North realized they would need a place to move, when they ruined that area of the country...........

HexHead
05-07-2012, 06:37
5. Demographics: the logistics of unwinding slavery was a topic of great debate. There was great concern regarding the sudden and overnight freeing of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of uneducated field hands, many of whom would be understandably bitter and hostile to their former 'masters', not to mention easily manipulated by emerging political powers. In retrospect, this concern - emancipation without a plan - has been vindicated.

There was a plan. Lincoln was a disciple of Henry Clay and his theory of resettlement. Lincon's intention was to deport the freed slaves back to Africa or to Haiti, Central and South America. Anywhere but here.

John Wilkes Booth's birthday should be the black holiday. He did far more for blacks than MLK ever did.

Dexters
05-07-2012, 06:53
He is what y'all need to remember from history:
1. The winner writes the history
2. The moral justification is created after the war is over.

The North won; they wrote
1. To save the union
2. Eliminate slavery

If the South won; they would have wrote
1. Too much power was being centralized in DC and specifically the northern states - they had the industry and population - power should reside in the states
2. The congress was being corrupted by monied interests. You should research this - the industrialist of the north could buy votes very cheaply. Like today, politicians went to DC poor and came back rich and/or became lobbyist. The South could not compete with that.

Truth dat!

DOC44
05-07-2012, 07:06
states' rights

Doc44

Brucev
05-07-2012, 07:17
That's a pretty good synopsis. I would add two small but relevant bullet points:

4. Property: slave owners, including those who saw the increasing futility of the circumstance, wanted to be compensated for their economic investment (as opposed to taking a large loss as part of any wholesale emancipation by federal decree).

5. Demographics: the logistics of unwinding slavery was a topic of great debate. There was great concern regarding the sudden and overnight freeing of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of uneducated field hands, many of whom would be understandably bitter and hostile to their former 'masters', not to mention easily manipulated by emerging political powers. In retrospect, this concern - emancipation without a plan - has been vindicated.

At other times we have not agreed. In this instance, the above paragraph with quote is well stated. I agree with it.

smokin762
05-07-2012, 07:20
There was a plan. Lincoln was a disciple of Henry Clay and his theory of resettlement. Lincon's intention was to deport the freed slaves back to Africa or to Haiti, Central and South America. Anywhere but here.

Most likely they would have been sent to Liberia. I believe Liberia was to be setup at the time to have a government very close to ours but meant for the freed slaves.

Their national flag looks very close to ours also.

Cavalry Doc
05-07-2012, 07:26
Money and power.

Seems simple. Since it happened a LONG time ago, it seems to have ended pretty well. You have to wonder if the world would be better or worse without a strong America. Being American, I tend to favor a Unified United States. It probably would have been better if we had found a way to solve the problems peaceably, but it's a few minutes too late to change the past.

Glock!9
05-07-2012, 08:25
Of course it wasn't ALL about slavery but slavery was used to push the north's agenda. What was the south to do if they lost their entire labor force? Slavery is morally wrong, and should have been stopped however it was just a political move at the time.

lancesorbenson
05-07-2012, 08:44
I don't know why this topic should even be discussed. Fortyofforty has spoken. Lincoln loved the slaves and wanted to set them free and every Confederate soldier was a slack-jawed yokel hell bent on preserving slavery for the minority, slave owners in the South. Robert E. Lee was a confused simpleton who didn't care for slavery but was, I guess, tricked into fighting for it and it alone. Jefferson Davis said it was about slavery and that we take at face value, but please ignore the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation actually would have preserved the institution.

There is no room for nuance or debate.

fortyofforty
05-07-2012, 09:25
I don't know why we are still discussing this. Lancesorbenson has spoken. Lincoln loved slavery and had no interest in ever ending it. The noble Southerners were going to free their slaves if only somebody had asked nicely. Jefferson Davis had no idea why the Southern states seceded. No other non violent methods to end slavery were on the horizon at all. Yep, lancesorbenson is right. Slavery had nothing to do with it.

JBnTX
05-07-2012, 09:28
JB is that you? I think you may have multiple personalities.


Maybe it's that you've got a one track mind?

kirgi08
05-07-2012, 09:46
tagged.

wjv
05-07-2012, 15:08
Gay marriage. . .

You can figure out which side was for and which side was against. . .

lancesorbenson
05-07-2012, 16:45
I don't know why we are still discussing this. Lancesorbenson has spoken. Lincoln loved slavery and had no interest in ever ending it. The noble Southerners were going to free their slaves if only somebody had asked nicely. Jefferson Davis had no idea why the Southern states seceded. No other non violent methods to end slavery were on the horizon at all. Yep, lancesorbenson is right. Slavery had nothing to do with it.

I never said slavery had nothing to do with it. Lincoln himself said it wasn't about freeing slaves. Go ahead, make some stupid simple-minded comment with one of those hilarious emoticons and continue to preach your third-grade view of history. Lincoln as the great emancipator!

ChuteTheMall
05-07-2012, 16:56
A whacky 3rd party got elected, and Lincoln was a previously a non-interventionist peacenik who opposed Polk's neo-con Mexican War for oil, which also was the training ground for the bloodthirsty West Pointers who needed to punch their career tickets a dozen years later when they got home.

It's Texas' fault.

:cowboy:

Ruggles
05-07-2012, 16:58
That horrible Yankee accent.

fortyofforty
05-07-2012, 16:59
I never said slavery had nothing to do with it. Lincoln himself said it wasn't about freeing slaves. Go ahead, make some stupid simple-minded comment with one of those hilarious emoticons and continue to preach your third-grade view of history. Lincoln as the great emancipator!

And I never said slavery was the only cause, only that it lies at the root of almost all the reasons for the war. You can keep presenting your simplistic Marxist Southern grade school views of an economic struggle by the evil Yankees against the helpless noble Southerners who didn't even want slaves as the only reason for the war. It doesn't get any more correct, though, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I've got Jefferson Davis (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/jdmess.html) on my side. Argue with him. Even call him simple-minded, if you like.

And I asked you what method other than war you would have suggested to end slavery in 1860.

Of course, I am still awaiting your enlightened answer. :popcorn:

juggy4711
05-07-2012, 17:53
And I never said slavery was the only cause, only that it lies at the root of almost all the reasons for the war. You can keep presenting your simplistic Marxist Southern grade school views of an economic struggle by the evil Yankees against the helpless noble Southerners who didn't even want slaves as the only reason for the war. It doesn't get any more correct, though, no matter how many times you repeat it.

What you fail to admit or realize is that slavery was at the time first and foremost an economic issue. Slavery as a moral only issue is not looking at history in context no matter how much you repeat it.

And I asked you what method other than war you would have suggested to end slavery in 1860...

War wasn't necessary to end slavery unless you look back on history yet again out of context, and as one that demanded that via whatever means possible it ended when you thought it should (1860). Slavery, especially as technology advances, has never been an economically sustainable system. Technology would have made slavery cost ineffective given another 20-30 years with no need for war.

The same out of context view of history fuels those that believe the Native Americans were screwed over and that the USA was formed through amoral means. One can always find great fault when viewing the past through a lens of the present. Should all history be judged so, no past individual, no country or group has ever been innocent or morally just.

fortyofforty
05-07-2012, 18:41
What you fail to admit or realize is that slavery was at the time first and foremost an economic issue. Slavery as a moral only issue is not looking at history in context no matter how much you repeat it.

This is ridiculous. For many people the condition of the slaves had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with Christian values and the treatment of their fellow men. Only Marxists pretend otherwise and view every historic event solely in terms of economic struggle.

War wasn't necessary to end slavery unless you look back on history yet again out of context, and as one that demanded that via whatever means possible it ended when you thought it should (1860). Slavery, especially as technology advances, has never been an economically sustainable system. Technology would have made slavery cost ineffective given another 20-30 years with no need for war.

Really? You would have been willing to gamble that a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America, would have willingly accorded full rights to Africans in the South in a few short years? Not too much good for those still living under the evils of slavery for "another 20-30 years". Of course, when it wasn't you, a few decades seems short, doesn't it? Now, the fact that slavery had survived for over two-hundred years in America even though "[s]lavery, especially as technology advances, has never been an economically sustainable system" means nothing to you.

The same out of context view of history fuels those that believe the Native Americans were screwed over and that the USA was formed through amoral means. One can always find great fault when viewing the past through a lens of the present. Should all history be judged so, no past individual, no country or group has ever been innocent or morally just.

Yes, exactly right. Talk to some on GT about people who "find great fault when viewing the past through a lens of the present". Ron Paul, lancesorbenson, and juggy4711 come to mind as they criticize Lincoln for going to war in 1861, faced with secession and an attack on federal installations.

Lincoln wanted, first and foremost, to preserve the Union. The South wanted, first and foremost, to preserve slavery. Those ideas clashed, the Southern states believed slavery could not survive given the political climate of the country within the United States, and they seceded. Why? To preserve slavery, out of the reach of Congress.

Restless28
05-07-2012, 18:44
This is ridiculous. For many people the condition of the slaves had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with Christian values and the treatment of their fellow men. Only Marxists pretend otherwise and view every historic event solely in terms of economic struggle.



Really? You would have been willing to gamble that a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America, would have willingly accorded full rights to Africans in the South in a few short years? Not too much good for those still living under the evils of slavery for "another 20-30 years". Of course, when it wasn't you, a few decades seems short, doesn't it? Now, the fact that slavery had survived for over two-hundred years in America even though "[s]lavery, especially as technology advances, has never been an economically sustainable system" means nothing to you.



Yes, exactly right. Talk to some on GT about people who "find great fault when viewing the past thorugh a lens of the present". Ron Paul, lancesorbenson, and juggy4711 come to mind as they criticize Lincoln for going to war in 1861, faced with secession and an attack on federal installations.

Lincoln wanted, first and foremost, to preserve the Union. The South wanted, first and foremost, to preserve slavery. Those ideas clashed, the Southern states believed slavery could not survive given the political climate of the country within the United States, and they seceded. Why? To preserve slavery, out of the reach of Congress.

As usual, a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Sorta like fly **** on the window.

fortyofforty
05-07-2012, 18:45
As usual, a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Sorta like fly **** on the window.

Thanks for that valuable post. It brought a lot. :rofl:

Not one idea. Not one refutation of anything I wrote. Just trolling. Good job.

Restless28
05-07-2012, 19:09
Thanks for that valuable post. It brought a lot. :rofl:

Not one idea. Not one refutation of anything I wrote. Just trolling. Good job.

Thanks. One day I hope to have a hateful ignorant signature just like yours. You're ****ing awesome.

fortyofforty
05-07-2012, 19:19
Thanks. One day I hope to have a hateful ignorant signature just like yours. You're ****ing awesome.

Thanks. One day maybe I'll work up to your level of ignorant hatred of Muslims. You're a good intolerant Christian. :wavey: We're all proud of you.

Restless28
05-07-2012, 19:27
Thanks. One day maybe I'll work up to your level of ignorant hatred of Muslims. You're a good intolerant Christian. :wavey: We're all proud of you.

The short bus runs at 7:15 sharp. Don't be late and look both ways before crossing the street.

fortyofforty
05-07-2012, 19:30
OK, and don't forget to loosen your helmet from time to time, to allow the blood to circulate. :rofl:

certifiedfunds
05-07-2012, 19:39
Why couldn't Lincoln just let the southern states secede?

Cavalry Doc
05-07-2012, 19:40
Why couldn't Lincoln just let the southern states secede?

Because.

fortyofforty
05-07-2012, 19:47
Why couldn't Lincoln just let the southern states secede?

Try this (http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/secessiontableofcontents.htm).

The secessionists claimed that according to the Constitution every state had the right to leave the Union. Lincoln claimed that they did not have that right. He opposed secession for these reasons:

1. Physically the states cannot separate.

2. Secession is unlawful.

3. A government that allows secession will disintegrate into anarchy.

4. That Americans are not enemies, but friends.

5. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive.

DOC44
05-07-2012, 19:58
States' Rights

Doc44

certifiedfunds
05-07-2012, 20:18
Try this (http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/secessiontableofcontents.htm).

The secessionists claimed that according to the Constitution every state had the right to leave the Union. Lincoln claimed that they did not have that right. He opposed secession for these reasons:

1. Physically the states cannot separate.



What? They have borders. That's like saying that physically the U.S. can't separate from Canada and Mexico.

2. Secession is unlawful.



Where is the section of the Constitution prohibiting secession? I honestly don't know.

3. A government that allows secession will disintegrate into anarchy.



Pure speculation on his part. But given that the founders regarded the states as independent nation states, and that tyrannical government should be destroyed, what's the problem with anarchy? I seriously doubt that the southern states would have had anarchaic conditions. They didn't rely on the fedgov for much at that point.

I think Lincoln is really reaching here.

4. That Americans are not enemies, but friends.



He sure has a way of treating his friends!:rofl::rofl:Kill them and burn their houses and churches down!

5. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive.

It kind of quit being a government of the people, when the North declared war to force the south into compliance, no?


Wow. Lincoln really was a scumbag.

Ruble Noon
05-07-2012, 20:28
Wow. Lincoln really was a scumbag.

Yes he was and I am surprised to see people who slam Obama for harming America defend Lincoln.

Ruble Noon
05-07-2012, 20:43
And I asked you what method other than war you would have suggested to end slavery in 1860.

Of course, I am still awaiting your enlightened answer. :popcorn:

Lincoln did propose compensated emancipation for the border states, but coupled his proposal with deportation of any freed slaves


http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html

fortyofforty
05-08-2012, 04:37
That doesn't end slavery in the South in 1860, does it? Nice try though. And the Southern states seceded to prevent any chance of being forced to free their slaves by Congressional action, so that was off the table.

fortyofforty
05-08-2012, 04:40
Wow. Lincoln really was a scumbag.

And yet the country is stronger than it would have been, and the slaves were freed a lot sooner than they would have been otherwise.

From the lame "solutions" provided so far, it's clear there was no other way to end slavery in the 1860s than war.

walt cowan
05-08-2012, 06:46
fiat money and a central banking system. google the term, green backs.

certifiedfunds
05-08-2012, 06:58
And yet the country is stronger than it would have been, .

But the Republic is dead.

Even trade?

Sam Spade
05-08-2012, 07:23
But the Republic is dead.

Even trade?

Yes. Better than even to erase the obscenity of chattel slavery.

All of the romantics dreaming of those better days picture themselves as some stalwart yeoman, prospering in a world of rugged individualists. Let's make them property, where their wives and daughters warm their owners' beds, where they're sold at whim for profit, where they're subsisting at the survival level while their betters achieve.

And don't anyone dare draw an asinine comparison to what we have now. Such flippant ignorance is intellectually feeble can only be seen as willful, or as manipulative in support of an agenda.

Chuck TX
05-08-2012, 07:35
But the Republic is dead.

Even trade?

Come on, a Bravia in every house. What a deal!

Goaltender66
05-08-2012, 08:10
Where is the section of the Constitution prohibiting secession? I honestly don't know.

Well, on that part the Constitution is silent, agreed. But oughtn't the question be where is secession permitted? The Constitution is a positive list of powers, so if a power isn't expressly listed it can't be taken that it's allowed.

Seems to me that on the question, the Framers would probably say this is one of those things that Congress should provide for.

Sam Spade
05-08-2012, 08:24
Well, on that part the Constitution is silent, agreed. But oughtn't the question be where is secession permitted? The Constitution is a positive list of powers, so if a power isn't expressly listed it can't be taken that it's allowed.

Seems to me that on the question, the Framers would probably say this is one of those things that Congress should provide for.

Or maybe they just figured that the formation of a "perpetual" union was, you know, perpetual.

RC-RAMIE
05-08-2012, 08:41
Well, on that part the Constitution is silent, agreed. But oughtn't the question be where is secession permitted? The Constitution is a positive list of powers, so if a power isn't expressly listed it can't be taken that it's allowed.

Seems to me that on the question, the Framers would probably say this is one of those things that Congress should provide for.

It is a list of powers for the Federal Government not the states.

Goaltender66
05-08-2012, 09:17
It is a list of powers for the Federal Government not the states.

It's a framework for how the union is governed. There's a difference.

Goaltender66
05-08-2012, 09:23
Or maybe they just figured that the formation of a "perpetual" union was, you know, perpetual.

Well, there's that, but in 1860 wasn't the question of whether the union was still perpetual under the Constitution an open question? Texas v. White wouldn't come until after the Civil War.

Sam Spade
05-08-2012, 11:09
Well, there's that, but in 1860 wasn't the question of whether the union was still perpetual under the Constitution an open question? Texas v. White wouldn't come until after the Civil War.

My light-hearted answer, this being a gun board and all, would be: What part of "perpetual" don't you understand?

I'll give you a serious answer when the search function comes back up. Dragoon44 and I have had several discussions on this with people in the past. There've been links to both court cases and to presidential publications from well before the Civil War/War Between the States/Second American Revolution/War of Northern Agression/Late Unpleasantness that address this.

Goaltender66
05-08-2012, 11:14
My light-hearted answer, this being a gun board and all, would be: What part of "perpetual" don't you understand?

I'll give you a serious answer when the search function comes back up. Dragoon44 and I have had several discussions on this with people in the past. There've been links to both court cases and to presidential publications from well before the Civil War/War Between the States/Second American Revolution/War of Northern Agression/Late Unpleasantness that address this.

I'm not doubting your answer, just that a) I'm not as up on jurisprudence concerning secession as perhaps I should be and b) while I know that the Articles of Confederation spoke to a perpetual union, I'm not familiar with arguments that transferred that perpetual nature to the new union.

I think the question in the thread requires us to to look at the fact picture as known in 1860, not what we know (or believe) now in 2012.

Sam Spade
05-08-2012, 11:58
I'm not doubting your answer, just that a) I'm not as up on jurisprudence concerning secession as perhaps I should be and b) while I know that the Articles of Confederation spoke to a perpetual union, I'm not familiar with arguments that transferred that perpetual nature to the new union.

I can give a quick overview of this. The AoC formed a nation, the "United States of America", and set out guidelines. The term "perpetual union" was no mere phrase of art. Besides the preamble, it appears multiple times, particularly in Article 13, which includes the clause, "And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

So from the get-go, the people united removed a great deal of soveriegnty from the varios states, and the states united pledged that they were in the Union permanently. The escape clause was there, but it required the confirmation of every state legislature.

Now comes the Constitution. The key point in the ratification is that at no time whatsoever did the thing created as "the United States of America" cease to exist. There's a confusing transition where both the AoC and the Constituion were in play, but ultimately all of the state legislatures confirmed the new struction, just as the AoC called for. The preamble states that the people are putting forth "a more perfect Union", i.e., one that was more evolved and refined, but it was a refinement of the continuously exsisting nation, not a toss and replace. Again, an escape clause, this time in the form of a Constitutional Convention, but still requiring a super-majority, both to convene and to ratify. So contrary to your term "new Union", we're looking at a refinement of the old one.



I think the question in the thread requires us to to look at the fact picture as known in 1860, not what we know (or believe) now in 2012.
I agree completely.

QNman
05-08-2012, 17:57
Yes. Better than even to erase the obscenity of chattel slavery.

All of the romantics dreaming of those better days picture themselves as some stalwart yeoman, prospering in a world of rugged individualists. Let's make them property, where their wives and daughters warm their owners' beds, where they're sold at whim for profit, where they're subsisting at the survival level while their betters achieve.

And don't anyone dare draw an asinine comparison to what we have now. Such flippant ignorance is intellectually feeble can only be seen as willful, or as manipulative in support of an agenda.

Quoted for truth.

Whatever the reasons for the civil war, the outcome cannot be denied, at least in one specific respect. Slavery is an abomination of human nature, a specific and accepted cruelty to allow the affluent to profit from the backs of another. Not in the usual Democrat talking points about the "rich" versus the "poor", but the literal owning of one person by another based solely on the level of pigmentation in ones skin.

Whatever the cause of the civil war, at least one outcome is that this barbaric practice was finally removed from the fabric of our republic.

fortyofforty
05-08-2012, 18:04
Whatever the cause of the civil war, at least one outcome is that this barbaric practice was finally removed from the fabric of our republic.

At the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. But absolutely worth it. Unfortunately necessary, due to the absence of any other viable alternatives at the time.

QNman
05-08-2012, 18:18
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. But absolutely worth it. Unfortunately necessary, due to the absence of any other viable alternatives at the time.

I bought "The Battle Cry of Freedom", which was recommended by a user who felt differently. It appears this source, too, cites the building tension of slavery and the abolishonist movement that was growing steadily under the current of the mainstream. Admittedly, I am only though the first 100 pages or so, but it is becoming more clear that the result is as expected - conflict oer the topic of slavery specifically and the states rights to alow it had been brewing for decades prior to electing an abolishonist President from the recently renamed Whig party.

fortyofforty
05-08-2012, 18:32
I bought "The Battle Cry of Freedom", which was recommended by a user who felt differently. It appears this source, too, cites the building tension of slavery and the abolishonist movement that was growing steadily under the current of the mainstream. Admittedly, I am only though the first 100 pages or so, but it is becoming more clear that the result is as expected - conflict oer the topic of slavery specifically and the states rights to alow it had been brewing for decades prior to electing an abolishonist President from the recently renamed Whig party.

I know it is fashionable to insult people who claim that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War, because it seems simplistic and offends many Southerners who need to believe their ancestors would never fight to preserve slavery.

However, I stand by my assertion and have seen no reason to change my opinion. In fact, the more I dig, the more I find to back it up. If you study the Republican (http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html) and Democrat (http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/1860_(Southern)_Democratic_Party_Platform) party platforms of 1860, you will see that slavery features prominently, and for Republicans, not for economic reasons but moral ones. If you read the statement of Jefferson Davis (http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/1860_(Southern)_Democratic_Party_Platform) in 1861, he clearly explains the reasons for secession as he understood them, and slavery is front and center.

I will stick by my (if I remember the derisive description) fifth grade notion of the cause of the Civil War. Slavery. At the core, it was about slavery. Sad that some can't bring themselves to admit this obvious truth, because of the pain it causes.

QNman
05-08-2012, 19:11
I know it is fashionable to insult people who claim that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War, because it seems simplistic and offends many Southerners who need to believe their ancestors would never fight to preserve slavery.

However, I stand by my assertion and have seen no reason to change my opinion. In fact, the more I dig, the more I find to back it up. If you study the Republican (http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html) and Democrat (http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/1860_(Southern)_Democratic_Party_Platform) party platforms of 1860, you will see that slavery features prominently, and for Republicans, not for economic reasons but moral ones. If you read the statement of Jefferson Davis (http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/1860_(Southern)_Democratic_Party_Platform) in 1861, he clearly explains the reasons for secession as he understood them, and slavery is front and center.

I will stick by my (if I remember the derisive description) fifth grade notion of the cause of the Civil War. Slavery. At the core, it was about slavery. Sad that some can't bring themselves to admit this obvious truth, because of the pain it causes.

I believe you are correct.

czsmithGT
05-08-2012, 19:37
It isn't rocket science. The 13 rebellious states told why they wanted to leave the Union.


Here are 4:

Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

lancesorbenson
05-08-2012, 20:53
Sad that some can't bring themselves to admit this obvious truth, because of the pain it causes.

Even if true it wouldn't cause me any pain. All four grandparents came from Ireland to New Orleans early in the 1900s and no one in my family ever owned a single slave. I went to Catholic school and there was never any slavery apologetics, but a fairly detailed study of the economics and politics between the North and South that never stooped to the "slack jawed yokels" level. Your dime store psychology notwithstanding, I'm going to agree to disagree and you can feel free to do the same

certifiedfunds
05-08-2012, 21:15
Yes. Better than even to erase the obscenity of chattel slavery.

All of the romantics dreaming of those better days picture themselves as some stalwart yeoman, prospering in a world of rugged individualists. Let's make them property, where their wives and daughters warm their owners' beds, where they're sold at whim for profit, where they're subsisting at the survival level while their betters achieve.

And don't anyone dare draw an asinine comparison to what we have now. Such flippant ignorance is intellectually feeble can only be seen as willful, or as manipulative in support of an agenda.

I think you're assuming I believe it was the Republic or Slavery. I don't.

The government could have expropriated the slaves, fairly compensated the owners, and been done with it.

Without bloodshed.

Moreover, should the union decide that slavery was no longer acceptable, what is wrong with the states leaving that union to perpetuate whatever the people of the state want to perpetuate? To no longer be governed by the union nor benefit from it?

Sam Spade
05-08-2012, 21:23
I think you're assuming I believe it was the Republic or Slavery. I don't.

The government could have expropriated the slaves, fairly compensated the owners, and been done with it.

Without bloodshed.

Moreover, should the union decide that slavery was no longer acceptable, what is wrong with the states leaving that union to perpetuate whatever the people of the state want to perpetuate? To no longer be governed by the union nor benefit from it?

I addressed the perpetual union those states chose to enter elsewhere.

Do you have any idea of the market value of slaves in 1860? Where do you propose that money should have come from?

And what was the legal basis for depriving them of their liberty in the first place?

certifiedfunds
05-08-2012, 21:26
I addressed the perpetual union those states chose to enter elsewhere.

Do you have any idea of the market value of slaves in 1860? Where do you propose that money should have come from?

And what was the legal basis for depriving them of their liberty in the first place?

I have no idea. Are you saying expropriation was cost prohibitive?

Legal basis: I have no idea and am not inclined to research it. My guess would be that you would need to ask the folks who wrote and ratified the 5th Amendment while their slaves were tending to the property back home.

Ruble Noon
05-08-2012, 21:33
I addressed the perpetual union those states chose to enter elsewhere.

Do you have any idea of the market value of slaves in 1860? Where do you propose that money should have come from?

And what was the legal basis for depriving them of their liberty in the first place?

From $3 for children to $1800 for adults. What I read somewhere. :dunno:

The Civil War cost $8 billion.

Sam Spade
05-08-2012, 21:40
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1860USmn_13ms1#usgs302

Value of those held as slaves, approx $3 billion in 1860. This was roughly equal to the value of all farmland and farm structures in the South. Total budget of the US in 1860, $78 million. Yes, I'm saying it was unworkable.

Ruble Noon
05-08-2012, 21:42
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1860USmn_13ms1#usgs302

Value of those held as slaves, approx $3 billion in 1860. Total budget of the US in 1860, $78 million. Yes, I'm saying it was unworkable.

We could have saved $5 billion by buying their freedom.

Sam Spade
05-08-2012, 21:49
We could have saved $5 billion by buying their freedom.

That makes no sense at all, unless you equip your 1860 policy makers with crystal balls or time machines.

No one, North or South, thought the war would have lasted as long as it did. Initial troop levies were for 90 days. Everyone could picture the cost of buying every acre of Southern farmland and still needing more money.

holesinpaper
05-08-2012, 21:58
That makes no sense at all, unless you equip your 1860 policy makers with crystal balls or time machines.

No one, North or South, thought the war would have lasted as long as it did. Initial troop levies were for 90 days. Everyone could picture the cost of buying every acre of Southern farmland and still needing more money.

You mean like every other war ever fought, it was more expensive than the politicians wanted to admit it would be.

Shocking (not).

holesinpaper
05-08-2012, 22:01
"And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

Articles of Confederation, good stuff. Boy, did they use that as toilet paper or what.

Then they went on to use COTUS as toilet paper.

Oh well, at lease we've been consistent.

juggy4711
05-08-2012, 22:01
This is ridiculous. For many people the condition of the slaves had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with Christian values and the treatment of their fellow men. Only Marxists pretend otherwise and view every historic event solely in terms of economic struggle.

Yeah you got me I'm a Marxist.

Really? You would have been willing to gamble that a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America, would have willingly accorded full rights to Africans in the South in a few short years? Not too much good for those still living under the evils of slavery for "another 20-30 years". Of course, when it wasn't you, a few decades seems short, doesn't it? Now, the fact that slavery had survived for over two-hundred years in America even though "[s]lavery, especially as technology advances, has never been an economically sustainable system" means nothing to you.

Chances are I wouldn't have been affluent/wealthy enough to own slaves so it is not likely it would have been an issue I thought was worth fighting for. And in fact slavery has never been a perpetually economically sustainable system but I guess history means nothing to you.

Yes, exactly right. Talk to some on GT about people who "find great fault when viewing the past through a lens of the present". Ron Paul, lancesorbenson, and juggy4711 come to mind as they criticize Lincoln for going to war in 1861, faced with secession and an attack on federal installations.

So you are all for giving back everything we stole from the Natives Americans. I mean we should view the past through the lens of the present right?

As for your pathetic attack on Ron Paul and myself, it was viewing the past through a lens of even further in the past. Those pesky lessons the Founders tried to warn us not to repeat.

Lincoln wanted, first and foremost, to preserve the Union. The South wanted, first and foremost, to preserve slavery. Those ideas clashed, the Southern states believed slavery could not survive given the political climate of the country within the United States, and they seceded. Why? To preserve slavery, out of the reach of Congress.

And why did they want to preserve slavery? Oh right because they were evil southerners hell bent on maltreating folks. Had nothing to do with the economic organization the South depended on for it's existence.

Slavery was legal in the North longer than it was the South so your moral high ground is non-existent.

Sam Spade
05-08-2012, 22:04
Slavery was legal in the North longer than it was the South so your moral high ground is non-existent.

Natty? Is that you?

juggy4711
05-08-2012, 23:04
Natty? Is that you?

Nope just a matter of fact. But hang on to that Pyrrhic victory that was the end to Slavery and enjoy the Obamacare it helped make possible.

Mister_Beefy
05-09-2012, 01:49
the chattel slavery practiced in the south is the worst, most onerous form of slavery.

ancient egypt treated its slaves better.

those that defend the south, and the practice of chattel slavery with it, make me sick.

fortyofforty
05-09-2012, 04:59
Your dime store psychology notwithstanding, I'm going to agree to disagree and you can feel free to do the same

Yes, I never stooped to your "fifth grade" level. That's true. Your immediate reliance on ad hominem attacks when your position is weak is obvious.

You can disagree with me, Jefferson Davis, the leaders of seceding states, and the Republican and Democrat parties of 1860. You can fail to provide any period evidence to back up your position, as most other posters, including myself, did. That's your right. No one can force knowledge on anyone else, especially when they are invested in their belief system and their minds are closed. You are a model voter for a certain presidential candidate. Good luck to you. :wavey:

fortyofforty
05-09-2012, 05:07
Yeah you got me I'm a Marxist.

You have a Marxist understanding of history. It's not really your fault, as that is what is taught in government schools.

Chances are I wouldn't have been affluent/wealthy enough to own slaves so it is not likely it would have been an issue I thought was worth fighting for. And in fact slavery has never been a perpetually economically sustainable system but I guess history means nothing to you.

So, would you have fought over tariffs? :rofl: You never do say when you think slavery, which had lasted for hundreds of years, would have magically disappeared.

So you are all for giving back everything we stole from the Natives Americans. I mean we should view the past through the lens of the present right?

So you don't think slavery was wrong, right?

As for your pathetic attack on Ron Paul and myself, it was viewing the past through a lens of even further in the past. Those pesky lessons the Founders tried to warn us not to repeat.

You never did explain how slavery would have been ended without war, or when exactly it would have ended.

And why did they want to preserve slavery? Oh right because they were evil southerners hell bent on maltreating folks. Had nothing to do with the economic organization the South depended on for it's existence.

And why did they choose Africans, if whole point was to keep slaves? Why not pick some white people and enslave them? Oh, right, slavery had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with economics. OK. That makes sense now. :wavey: Slaves are slaves, and that was all there was to it. Now I get it. Thanks for explaining it to me.

Slavery was legal in the North longer than it was the South so your moral high ground is non-existent.

Slavery was legal in the North and practiced on a miniscule scale compared with the South, so your moral equivalency is ludicrous and comical.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 05:59
There is no moral high ground guys, north or south. Slavery was about as evil a thing man has ever created.

Slavery may not have been the only cause for the war, but it was a major factor. It was 150 years ago, so why not try to get over it.

Gunboat1
05-09-2012, 06:02
I haven't been paying attention lately....looks like Winnie the Troll is back in a new incarnation.

Goaltender66
05-09-2012, 06:39
I have no idea. Are you saying expropriation was cost prohibitive?

Legal basis: I have no idea and am not inclined to research it. My guess would be that you would need to ask the folks who wrote and ratified the 5th Amendment while their slaves were tending to the property back home.
Not aimed at CF directly, just an observation:

I think Sam raises a very good point about the legal basis of the Federal Government just buying slaves in 1860. Eminent Domain requires the property that is seized to be "for public use." Deprivation of private property only after due process doesn't imply compensation...merely that Congress pass a law outlawing slavery which is upheld by the courts (which I believe satisfies due process...).

So when the argument arises that the Federal Government could have just purchased the slaves, cost issue aside, what power of the government exists that would let it actually do it? To me this seems to be no small matter.

certifiedfunds
05-09-2012, 06:53
Not aimed at CF directly, just an observation:

I think Sam raises a very good point about the legal basis of the Federal Government just buying slaves in 1860. Eminent Domain requires the property that is seized to be "for public use." Deprivation of private property only after due process doesn't imply compensation...merely that Congress pass a law outlawing slavery which is upheld by the courts (which I believe satisfies due process...).

So when the argument arises that the Federal Government could have just purchased the slaves, cost issue aside, what power of the government exists that would let it actually do it? To me this seems to be no small matter.

I can't argue with that.

Skyhook
05-09-2012, 06:54
the North realized they would need a place to move, when they ruined that area of the country...........

That's just sick-- and funny-- with the ring of truth in there.

:wavey:

Skyhook
05-09-2012, 06:59
the chattel slavery practiced in the south is the worst, most onerous form of slavery.

ancient egypt treated its slaves better.

those that defend the south, and the practice of chattel slavery with it, make me sick.

Naturally that would include those who rounded the slaves up and put them on boats in Africa, right?

There were very few people in 1800s America who actually *owned* people (slaves) and that greed which had them committing one of the most grievous acts ever has cost us and will continue to cost us enormously for just about forever.

(Anyone else read O'Reilly's book, Killing Lincoln? )

HexHead
05-09-2012, 07:23
And I asked you what method other than war you would have suggested to end slavery in 1860.


Every other country in the civilized world that eliminated slavery did so without going to war over it. Most monetarily compensated the slave owners for the loss of their property. This wasn't even proposed here.

HexHead
05-09-2012, 07:33
Well, on that part the Constitution is silent, agreed. But oughtn't the question be where is secession permitted? The Constitution is a positive list of powers, so if a power isn't expressly listed it can't be taken that it's allowed.

Seems to me that on the question, the Framers would probably say this is one of those things that Congress should provide for.

WTF? The Constitution lists the things the Federal government can't do. And what powers are not expressly given to them are given to the States.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 07:35
WTF? The Constitution lists the things the Federal government can't do. And what powers are not expressly given to them are given to the States.

It says the president can command the armed forces. Congress can make laws. Stuff like that.

lancesorbenson
05-09-2012, 07:44
Yes, I never stooped to your "fifth grade" level. That's true. Your immediate reliance on ad hominem attacks when your position is weak is.

I've said time and again slavery was a part of it. You said early on in this discussion that it was THE reason. I have said it was actually fairly complicated and Lincoln didn't give a whit about freeing slaves until it being politically expedient 2 years into the war. You referred to southerners as "slack jawed yokels" who just wanted their slaves and I pointed out Lee's disdain for slavery but willingness to lead the Confederate army. Do you really think Lee and his men were fighting the bloodiest war American history to preserve slavery while Grant's army was a bunch of slave-loving abolitionists?

fortyofforty
05-09-2012, 07:51
Every other country in the civilized world that eliminated slavery did so without going to war over it. Most monetarily compensated the slave owners for the loss of their property. This wasn't even proposed here.

So you think it would have been Constitutional for the government of the United States to purchase slaves from private citizens living in a foreign country, namely the Confederate States of America?

And you see no practical economic difficulty in the prospect of buying each and every slave from thousands of private owners when each of them knows your stated goal of buying every slave?

Brilliant.

fortyofforty
05-09-2012, 07:53
I've said time and again slavery was a part of it. You said early on in this discussion that it was THE reason. I have said it was actually fairly complicated and Lincoln didn't give a whit about freeing slaves until it being politically expedient 2 years into the war. You referred to southerners as "slack jawed yokels" who just wanted their slaves and I pointed out Lee's disdain for slavery but willingness to lead the Confederate army. Do you really think Lee and his men were fighting the bloodiest war American history to preserve slavery while Grant's army was a bunch of slave-loving abolitionists?

Do you seriously think that Lincoln and the Republican party were neutral or indifferent towards the issue of slavery? You really need to do more basic research.

lancesorbenson
05-09-2012, 07:55
There is no moral high ground guys, north or south. Slavery was about as evil a thing man has ever created.

Slavery may not have been the only cause for the war, but it was a major factor. It was 150 years ago, so why not try to get over it.

Agreed, but it still makes for an interesting discussion. I don't think anyone arguing either side believes slavery was right, but rather the wisdom in spilling the blood of 500-something thousand American lives versus a gradual unwinding of slavery that every Western nation with the exception of Haiti was able to accomplish.

lancesorbenson
05-09-2012, 08:04
Do you seriously think that Lincoln and the Republican party were neutral or indifferent towards the issue of slavery? You really need to do more basic research.

Pinning Licoln down on slavery is a slippery proposition. Sometimes he wrote and spoke like a raving abolitionist and other times he wrote and spoke about slavery with total indifference. Sometimes he'd do both at once. He was an enigmatic figure.

fortyofforty
05-09-2012, 08:14
Pinning Licoln down on slavery is a slippery proposition. Sometimes he wrote and spoke like a raving abolitionist and other times he wrote and spoke about slavery with total indifference. Sometimes he'd do both at once. He was an enigmatic figure.

I disagree. While Lincoln did not believe in racial parity, he was against the institution of slavery by the late 1850s at the latest. And Lincoln believed in preserving the Union above all, even above freeing the slaves.

Goaltender66
05-09-2012, 08:20
WTF? The Constitution lists the things the Federal government can't do. And what powers are not expressly given to them are given to the States.

I'm sorry...what?

In your first sentence you say the Constitution is a list of things the Federal government cannot do. In the second you state that powers expressly given to it (in other words...via a list of things the Federal Government can do....) are reserved to the states. Seems contradictory to me. If the document is but a list of things the Feds cannot do, how can it therefore have powers expressly given to them?

The thing is, unmentioned powers are reserved to the individual states, not the states acting as, well, a union (really, you think Original Intent means the states could bind together collectively into a shadow government with no checks on its power whatsoever...?). So here's what you're saying:

Either, say, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decides on its own to purchase every single slave in the south (assuming, of course, their state constitution permits such a thing...) or the several states band together via some kind of extra-constitutional agreement to purchase slaves.

Now ask yourself...in 1860, what was the likelihood of either of those things actually happening?

To close, trying to say that the Federal Government can do something unless it's expressly disallowed by the Constitution is the kind of faulty legal reasoning that gave us the argument that it's OK to force you to purchase health insurance. After all, nothing in the Constitution says the Federal Government can't force you purchase a product, right? ;)

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 08:53
Agreed, but it still makes for an interesting discussion. I don't think anyone arguing either side believes slavery was right, but rather the wisdom in spilling the blood of 500-something thousand American lives versus a gradual unwinding of slavery that every Western nation with the exception of Haiti was able to accomplish.

Then obviously, cooler heads failed to prevail over 150 years ago. The hotheads had motivations, and in the end, it was a sad situation.

RC-RAMIE
05-09-2012, 09:28
Then obviously, cooler heads failed to prevail over 150 years ago. The hotheads had motivations, and in the end, it was a sad situation.

In politics doesn't hotheads and knee jerk reactions usually prevail?

QNman
05-09-2012, 11:20
We could have saved $5 billion by buying their freedom.

Truth is we will never know. Secession was attempted prior to emancipation. Secession was attempted preemptively.

That said, hind sight and armchair quarterbacking is easy 150 years later. I'd wager neither side would have imagined the cost of that war in blood or treasure.

QNman
05-09-2012, 11:27
I disagree. While Lincoln did not believe in racial parity, he was against the institution of slavery by the late 1850s at the latest. And Lincoln believed in preserving the Union above all, even above freeing the slaves.

This.

lancesorbenson
05-09-2012, 16:50
I disagree. While Lincoln did not believe in racial parity, he was against the institution of slavery by the late 1850s at the latest. And Lincoln believed in preserving the Union above all, even above freeing the slaves.

Wow, we're almost in agreement. Lincoln seems to have been personally against slavery, but his public life doesn't suggest he was what you'd call an abolitionist in any sense of the word. He was certainly tepid on the matter before the war, wanting to secure support from abolitionists but not alienate other Republicans.

Naelbis
05-09-2012, 16:58
Agreed, but it still makes for an interesting discussion. I don't think anyone arguing either side believes slavery was right, but rather the wisdom in spilling the blood of 500-something thousand American lives versus a gradual unwinding of slavery that every Western nation with the exception of Haiti was able to accomplish.
You underestimate the number of dead but almost 200k...and that is only the men who died, it doesn't include the number of wounded.

fortyofforty
05-09-2012, 18:22
Wow, we're almost in agreement. Lincoln seems to have been personally against slavery, but his public life doesn't suggest he was what you'd call an abolitionist in any sense of the word. He was certainly tepid on the matter before the war, wanting to secure support from abolitionists but not alienate other Republicans.

I think Lincoln's desire to preserve the Union at almost all costs overrode his personal desire to see slavery ended.

Lincoln (http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln95.html) in 1855:
In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border.

Lincoln (http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln95.html) in 1858:
Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end.

Also in 1858:
I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist.

And, even though Lincoln (http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln95.html) stated in his first Inaugural Address in 1861 the following:
I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
it was too late to keep the slave states from seceding. Ironically, secession and the attacking of federal forts gave Lincoln the "lawful right" to end slavery that he couldn't find before.

Welcome to the fifth grade. :supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 18:25
In politics doesn't hotheads and knee jerk reactions usually prevail?

Each situation is different. There are hundreds of wars that never happened.

juggy4711
05-09-2012, 18:28
There is no moral high ground guys, north or south. Slavery was about as evil a thing man has ever created.

Slavery may not have been the only cause for the war, but it was a major factor. It was 150 years ago, so why not try to get over it.

I agree on the moral high ground issue, but if getting over it means misrepresenting history as North good, South evil there is no getting over it. Lessons that should be learned and remembered from both sides failures would be over looked and forgotten.

You have a Marxist understanding of history. It's not really your fault, as that is what is taught in government schools...

Can you explain to me how my understanding of history has anything to do with Marxism?

The rest of it we are just going to disagree on over and over but I'm genuinely interested how Marx has anything to do with my view of history. I won't even argue with your response. I honestly am curious how you came to that conclusion.

fortyofforty
05-09-2012, 18:38
Can you explain to me how my understanding of history has anything to do with Marxism?

The rest of it we are just going to disagree on over and over but I'm genuinely interested how Marx has anything to do with my view of history. I won't even argue with your response. I honestly am curious how you came to that conclusion.

If you view the Civil War as purely an economic struggle between the industrial North and the agrarian South (over tariffs or other such grievances), that is a Marxist view of history. A power struggle has many components, only one of which is economic. Slavery, the root cause of the war, had economic, social, political and moral components for the people involved, on every level. It would be like claiming the only reason for the American Revolution was antipathy to the unfair tax situation. Thatís it, in a nutshell.

HexHead
05-09-2012, 18:54
and the attacking of federal forts gave Lincoln the "lawful right" to end slavery that he couldn't find before.



Lincoln forced the South's hand into firing on Ft Sumter by attempting to resupply the fort. He was warned by his military commanders, including Gen Winfield Scott, that leaving a fort in the harbor of another country wouldn't be tolerated. His response was to send a supply ship. He did it because he knew the people in the North would be outraged and would support his war.

QNman
05-09-2012, 19:02
I think Lincoln's desire to preserve the Union at almost all costs overrode his personal desire to see slavery ended.

Lincoln in 1855:


Lincoln in 1858:


Also in 1858:


And, even though Lincoln stated in his first Inaugural Address in 1861 the following:

it was too late to keep the slave states from seceding. Ironically, secession and the attacking of federal forts gave Lincoln the "lawful right" to end slavery that he couldn't find before.

Welcome to the fifth grade. :supergrin:

Dude... More posts like this, please. Better citation of sources, perhaps, but a great post regardless.

JohnnyReb
05-09-2012, 19:09
Lincoln forced the South's hand into firing on Ft Sumter by attempting to resupply the fort. He was warned by his military commanders, including Gen Winfield Scott, that leaving a fort in the harbor of another country wouldn't be tolerated. His response was to send a supply ship. He did it because he knew the people in the North would be outraged and would support his war.

If South Carolina's succession meant anything at all, they couldn't allow a federal fort to operate in the state. Opportunity after opportunity was provided for the occupiers of the fort to leave, but they refused.

QNman
05-09-2012, 19:09
Lincoln forced the South's hand into firing on Ft Sumter by attempting to resupply the fort. He was warned by his military commanders, including Gen Winfield Scott, that leaving a fort in the harbor of another country wouldn't be tolerated. His response was to send a supply ship. He did it because he knew the people in the North would be outraged and would support his war.

Leaving behind the philosophical debate over what constitutes "force" in this context, none of what you've stated changes the fact that the South fired the first shots, if that were important.

The atmosphere was apparently ripe with tension between North and South and conflict was destined to occur, regardless of who fired first.

A match was tossed at a powder keg, and everyone acts surprised when it goes bang. But even so, it is neither the fault of the match nor of the keg; it is an outcome of the circumstances.

juggy4711
05-09-2012, 19:47
If you view the Civil War as purely an economic struggle between the industrial North and the agrarian South (over tariffs or other such grievances), that is a Marxist view of history. A power struggle has many components, only one of which is economic. Slavery, the root cause of the war, had economic, social, political and moral components for the people involved, on every level. It would be like claiming the only reason for the American Revolution was antipathy to the unfair tax situation. Thatís it, in a nutshell.

Appreciate the response. I get where you are coming from.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 19:50
I agree on the moral high ground issue, but if getting over it means misrepresenting history as North good, South evil there is no getting over it. Lessons that should be learned and remembered from both sides failures would be over looked and forgotten.





There were a lot of people in the north and south, and I am positive there were some very good ones, and very bad ones on both sides.

HarlDane
05-09-2012, 20:00
If South Carolina's succession meant anything at all, they couldn't allow a federal fort to operate in the state. Opportunity after opportunity was provided for the occupiers of the fort to leave, but they refused.In that case, I guess you think we should give Gitmo back to the Cubans?

juggy4711
05-09-2012, 21:08
There were a lot of people in the north and south, and I am positive there were some very good ones, and very bad ones on both sides.

No disagreement there. My issue are with those that believe that the North was without fault and the South without merit as such is a fraudulent representation of history.

lancesorbenson
05-09-2012, 21:55
Ironically, secession and the attacking of federal forts gave Lincoln the "lawful right" to end slavery that he couldn't find before.

Welcome to the fifth grade. :supergrin:

Ironic also that his Emancipation Proclamation didn't free slaves in the North or the border states of the South. One could view this as a calculated move to assert the moral high ground in what amounted to brilliant propaganda or a political expression of a deep-seeded abolitionism finally springing forth from Abe. Or both. Or something else entirely.

lancesorbenson
05-09-2012, 22:02
In that case, I guess you think we should give Gitmo back to the Cubans?

The U.S. signed a treaty with Cuba gaining a permanent lease on the property. How is this similar?

certifiedfunds
05-09-2012, 22:50
There were a lot of people in the north and south, and I am positive there were some very good ones, and very bad ones on both sides.

That fence must hurt in the crack of your butt. :supergrin:

unit1069
05-09-2012, 23:07
States rights was the reason.
Slavery was the excuse.

My opinion is the reverse is the correct answer, whether historians credit it or not.