12
   

Was the civil war about slavery?

 
 
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:03 pm
Slavery was what history books said, but is there another cause and effect reason for the Civil war?
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:05 pm
Oh yeah . . . the South was having a bad hair day. Rolling Eyes
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:08 pm
A friend once told me that if Lincoln had not been shot they would not have fought the Civil War. He was not joking.
Germlat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:21 pm
@Setanta,
Seriously either way?!
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:27 pm
The North were dumb enough to provoke the South into starting the war by manning Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor with Northern troops, so the South said "We ain't standing fer that!"..Smile
Later Lincoln cleverly got world opinion on his side by claiming the North was fighting against slavery.
Germlat
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:34 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
So which side where you on..just to be clear?!
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:39 pm
@edgarblythe,
A friend once told me that if Lincoln had not been shot they would not have fought the Civil War. He was not joking. >>

Not surprising. There are weirdos out there with weird ideas. Leno's TV Jay walk let's us know just how disconnected people are.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:44 pm
We've been down this road so many f*cking times is pathetic. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. So-called state troops of Florida and Alabama seized Federal installations in Florida in the first week of January, 1861, even before Florida has passed a secession ordinance. On January 8, 1861, so-called state troops attempted to take Forts Barrancas and McRae. Lt. Slemmer, commanding an artillery company, ordered his men to fire over the heads of the mob from Pensacola, who promptly took to their heels. Slemmer then ordered the guns at Forts Barrancas and McRae to be spiked, and laid out trains to the powder magazines in both forts, which were lit, destroying the magazines. Slemmer then withdrew with his men to Fort Pickens, in the harbor, which Federal troops held throughout the war.

There's a lot more that can be brought in evidence to show that the South wanted a war, and that the political leaders wrote checks their military ass couldn't cash. Of course, Lincoln was not the president at the time that Star of West attempted to resupply and reinforce Fort Sumter. That was on January 9, 1861. Lincoln was not inaugurated until March 4, 1861. When President Buchanan sent troops to Fort Sumter, he was acting well within his authority. No American President would have dared to let a mob of armed hotheads tell him that he couldn't send his troops where he wanted to send them.

Romeo shoots! Romeo misses! As usual . . .
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:45 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
The North were dumb enough to provoke the South into starting the war by manning Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor with Northern troops, so the South said "We ain't standing fer that!"..Smile
Later Lincoln cleverly got world opinion on his side by claiming the North was fighting against slavery.

Maybe, but I'm more inclined to believe that it was more about money and power, the cause and effect for all wars
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:51 pm
Quote:
Germlat said: @RF- So which side where you on..just to be clear?!

I'm a neutral Brit so the civil war was none of my biz!
But if you twist my arm i'd have to say i'm on the north's side because although they were dumb enough to get the south's backs up, they never wanted an actual war.
It was the naughty aggressive south who started the whole 4-year bloodbath by firing the first shots at Fort Sumter and then marched on Washington, what cheek!
farmerman
 
  6  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:55 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
I see that mere history never gets in the way of your stories.
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 01:58 pm
This horseshit has been done to death. I recommend the loons in this thread making claims they can't back up read this thread: The Confederacy was About Slavery
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 03:04 pm
Anyone who reads the Declaration of Independence from the Union of the various confederate states has no problem with this question.

Each declaration talks about the desire to preserve the institution of slavery...and calls dangers to it posed by the Union as a primary reason for secession.

Some of the states do it during the first three paragraphs.

The war was fought because of the secession...and the secession was occasioned specifically by the slavery issue.

So...YEAH...the Civil War was about slavery.

0 Replies
 
Germlat
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Jan, 2014 08:52 pm
@farmerman,
For sure!
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2014 11:05 am
The white Northern males that were willing to join the Union army were fighting for a "white West," as each western territory became a state. Meaning, if the western territories became free states, then white males could find a job. The Southern plantations were autonomous with its slave labor. Many white families in the north midwest originally were Southerners, since ancestors could not find a job in the plantation South.

Without the willingness to fight for the Union, there would have been no war. Drafting men was not without its problems, as the NYC Draft Riots of 1863 proved.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2014 02:06 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Without the willingness to fight for the Union, there would have been no war.


What a brilliant observation! The draft doesn't enter into it, eh? We just declare we're unwilling to fight and then there's no war. Brilliant.

Foofie for Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense all rolled up into one!
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2014 07:46 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Without the willingness to fight for the Union, there would have been no war.


What a brilliant observation! The draft doesn't enter into it, eh? We just declare we're unwilling to fight and then there's no war. Brilliant.

Foofie for Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense all rolled up into one!


The war could be fought, but not won, if the populace is anti-draft. Shades of Vietnam.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2014 07:50 pm
@Foofie,
The War was not particularly popular in the North. You yourself mentioned the NYC draft riots. Draft dodging was not something invented in the 1970s. In the 1860s a lot of people bought their way out of the Army if they could. Back in those dear days, if you were drafted you could pay a substitute to "stand in" for you. All nice and legal.
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Jan, 2014 08:14 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

The War was not particularly popular in the North. You yourself mentioned the NYC draft riots. Draft dodging was not something invented in the 1970s. In the 1860s a lot of people bought their way out of the Army if they could. Back in those dear days, if you were drafted you could pay a substitute to "stand in" for you. All nice and legal.


Yes. And the poor Irish immigrants in NYC were angry at that inequality. My point is just that if there had only been a reliance on a "hated" draft, the war would have had an obstacle, besides the patriotic fervor of the Confederates. So, since men joined voluntarily, based on the desire to see the territories become free states, one can argue that the war was fought to have a white west, since Blacks only lived, at that time, where slavery had existed.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jan, 2014 02:49 am
@Lustig Andrei,
The war was not popular in the South, either. The Confederate States instituted conscription well before it was done in the North. From the Wikipedia article on the Confederate States Army:

Quote:
By April 1862, the Confederacy passed a conscription act, which drafted men into PACS. The Confederate Congress' successive Conscription Acts broadened the ages of those subject to conscription and even swept in people who had already provided substitutes for service. Challenges to the subsequent acts came before five state supreme courts; all five upheld them/


The Enrollment Act was passed by the U.S. Congress a little less than a year later.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Was the civil war about slavery?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.35 seconds on 10/26/2020 at 07:41:08