Was the civil war about slavery?

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

I wonder if Robert E. Lee would have been man enough to spare Lincoln's life
in the unlikely case the South had defeated America?

Sure, he wud.
The goal was not to wipe out the USA.
The same as in America 's Revolutionary War,
it was only to secure independence and home rule.

The South had no reason (from history, nor from the Constitution)
to believe that it was not entitled to leave the Union,
the same way that we remain free to leave the U.N. or NATO.

Note that Lincoln sent a US Army colonel and his team
to assassinate President Jefferson Davis. The colonel
was arrested by the CSA before he cud do it.

David

1 Reply

Quote:

Was the civil war about slavery?

If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I don't think you are correct. Lee would have executed Lincoln. The Southern slave owners didn't like the idea of being denied dirt cheap labor. You are somewhat of an idealist, and that's too sad for words. But, I'm not interested in disabusing your fantasies. Enjoy, you are loving your life, and you should be happy.

By the way, I'm intrigued by your comment that the Union should stay intact now, but seem to think it would have been OK in the past. That's blows my mind. Does that mean you think Putin is doing something good by liberating the Ukraine?

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

I don't think you are correct.
Lee would have executed Lincoln.

Well, the CSA was peeved at Lincoln 's attempt to assassinate Jefferson Davis,
but with a Southern victory, Lincoln wud not likely have been in their custody.
When we won the Revolutionary War, King George was not
in our custody and Washington did not kill him.
All that was required for a Southern victory was that the North
withdraw its army of invasion and leave them alone,
the same as the English did after the Treaty of Paris of 1783.
After a CSA victory, presumably, the CSA and the USA
wud have peacefully co-existed, as if the South had never
joined the Union. It is conceivable that, after hostilities
had ended, the CSA and the USA might have negotiated
treaties of closer political relationship; maybe, in areas
of mutual advantage.

glitterbag wrote:

The Southern slave owners didn't like the idea of being denied dirt cheap labor.

Yea.

glitterbag wrote:

You are somewhat of an idealist, and that's too sad for words.

Thank u.

glitterbag wrote:

But, I'm not interested in disabusing your fantasies.

That 's a relief!

glitterbag wrote:

Enjoy, you are loving your life, and you should be happy.

SO STIPULATED !

glitterbag wrote:

By the way, I'm intrigued by your comment that the Union should stay
intact now, but seem to think it would have been OK in the past.
That's blows my mind.

Well, from how some of the ratifying States
explicitly put into their Instruments of Ratification
their reservation of the right to withdraw if thay felt like it (e.g., New York),
we know that, at the time, it was deemed OK.
Additionally, a few other regions (e.g., the New England States)
had been discussing withdrawal from the Union, earlier in the 1800s before the Civil War.

glitterbag wrote:

Does that mean you think Putin is doing something good by liberating the Ukraine?

Russia is bullying Ukraine,
tho the local Russians living in Ukraine like it.
I 'm concerned that Putin is trying to re-build the geografical
empire of the USSR, without communism.

0 Replies

When a clique of self-interested parties rebel against their national government, sending an army to put down the insurrection does not constitute an invasion.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued and the reason for that war would have been something else.

But the important part is: The Civil War was about slavery.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.

The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.

Read the Declaration of Independence of the Confederate states from the Union...and you will see that the institution of slavery was mentioned prominently...and lead the lists for most states.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.

That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.

1 Reply

The way I see it is that most Southerners wanted to become independent, and most Northerners couldn't care less, so Lincoln had no right to go to war to force the South to stay in the Union against the majority's wishes.
It's a bit like Ukraine, where the western half wants to be independent but the eastern half wants to stick with Russia.
Putin should therefore say to the westerners "Okay, if you want to be independent I don't have the right to send in tanks to force you to stay with Russia"

0 Replies

@Rickoshay75,

Most Confederates were fighting for their States' rights & independence e.g. Virginians fighting invading Yankee solders from the North. Very few owned slaves. The North were the aggressors, but Lincoln skilfully made sure the South fired the opening shots @ Fort Sumpter.

1 Reply

@Ramires7,

Lincoln was not in office when Fort Sumter was laid under siege. Now we have another southern apologist whose "knowledge" of events is not cluttered with facts. On-shore batteries fired on Star of the West, an unarmed civilian ship bringing reinforcements and supplies to Major Anderson, on January 9, 1861, almost two months before Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. This one of the goofier attempts at blaming Lincoln and playing the victim card for the slave states that i've seen here.

0 Replies

Didn't the South station an army at Bull Run facing Washington?
Sounds a bit provocative to me because the citizens were worried that they might decide march on to Washington, so the north had no real choice but to attack them.
I mean, if you've got an enemy army on your doostep you have to do something about it!
Anyway the South were too gungho for their own good, they should have just announced secession and left it at that without mustering a bloody army.. Smile

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Anyway the South were too gungho for their own good,
they should have just announced secession and left it at that without mustering a bloody army..

I agree. Their hotheads spoiled it for their independence.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.

Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

1 Reply

Well, if enough people believe that the Civil War was about slavery, then the dead Union soldiers might be thought of as representing blood reparations to the Black slaves. Considering the concept of reparations seems to be proferred periodically by one Black scholar or another, it would end the discussion, if reparations would be seen as having already been paid in the blood of dead Union soldiers. However, there is a new argument about reparations that focuses on the fact that whites have more wealth, that allows for greater opportunity for their children over generations. This may be true; however, I think that other demographics have achieved wealth without needing a government grubstake.

Plus, the German reparations to Jewish families were based on relatives that died, not just put into slave labor camps. I don't think 150 years after emancipation would allow for an accurate accounting of anything. Or, should the government just make educating Blacks similar to the old GI bill. Free education for having served the country? In effect, colleges would be profitting from tax payer money. Would that be bad? I would though want to see it as a one-time freebie.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

MY ancestors arrived in America AFTER
the War Between the States. We owe them nothing.
I don t wanna pay tax money to blacks. I owe them nothing.

David

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Well, if enough people believe that the Civil War was about slavery, then the dead Union soldiers might be thought of as representing blood reparations to the Black slaves. Considering the concept of reparations seems to be proferred periodically by one Black scholar or another, it would end the discussion, if reparations would be seen as having already been paid in the blood of dead Union soldiers.

It wud NOT end the discussion,
if the blacks think that thay have any chance to profit from it. Thay don t.

Incidentally, I do not believe that any Union soldiers
were asked whether thay love the Africans enuf
to put up with inconveniences or to endanger their lives and limbs for them.

For sure, thay were not politically correct in modern terms.
The Congress that voted for the 14th Amendment,
also voted for racially segregated schools in D. C.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Was the civil war about slavery?
If there were no slavery,
and if the South opted to leave the Union,
then, in my opinion, the Union wud have invaded the South, ANYWAY.

Well that answers the question from your perspective, David.

You agree with those of us who thing the Civil War was about slavery.

And you are speculating that if slavery had not existed and the South has opted
to leave the Union for some other reason...a Civil War would have ensued
and the reason for that war would have been something else.
The "something else" was a power grab
over real estate. Historically, states have been very loathe
relinquish control of real estate, and have been very willing
to be brutal about it; like the Mafia. If New Jersey quit the Union
tomorrow, then a federal invasion wud soon follow; how much black slavery
is there in NJ now??????

If the New England states, where less slavery was practiced,
had made good their (earlier) threat to leave (if politically
and militarily possible), the Union wud have done the same thing.

I remain convinced that the federal government wud have
done the same thing, if the South had NO slavery
and exercised its right to leave.

In other words: slavery in the South
was only incidental to the invasion from the North.

Note that there was abundant peaceful co-existence
between North and South (where plenty of slavery had existed
for many a decade) UNTIL the South cancelled its membership in the USA.

IF the South had not quit,
then it cud have and wud have continued its black slavery
as long as it wanted, with no federal invasions.

David

Frank Apisa wrote:
Okay...in your hypothetical...the "something else" would be a power grab.

But slavery DID exist...and the Civil War was about slavery.
That 's not what Abraham Lincoln said about it.
Remember HIM? He said it was about "preserving the Union"
and that he 'd do that with slavery or without slavery,
whatever worked. Did u forget that??

I think that he knew a little something about the Civil War.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union.

And the south was trying to break up the Union because
they considered human slavery to be essential to their economy.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.
Nonsense, horsefeathers and HOGWASH!

I am confident that u have the intellectual power
to reason this out, logically (if u try).
The South ALREADY HAD all the slavery it wanted without quitting the Union.
It did not need to leave the Union to get black slavery. Thay had it since the 17OOs (or the 16OOs, maybe?).

If slavery had been the reason for the Union invasion
(as Honest Abe said that it was NOT) then what was the reason,
Frank, for the Feds waiting until the secession, to invade???
Please explain that, if u don t mind. Was it just a co-incidence ?????

Take note that the 13th Amendment cud not have been enacted
IF the Southern representatives had remained present
and voting in both houses of Congress; hopeless.

The Southern members of Congress KNEW the Constitution
and thay knew how to COUNT.

Please tell us what EVIDENCE u have, Frank,
that the Union wud have let the Southern States freely leave, if thay had no slavery?????

I think its a naked fantasy.

David

Earth calling David...please come in, David.

I never said that the Union would have let the South leave freely if they had no slaves.

BUT THEY HAD SLAVES...and the reason they left the union is because of slavery.

Read their declarations of secession. They all mention slavery...and the animosity to slavery of the Union.

SLAVERY was the reason for the Civil War.

2 Replies

Was the civil war about slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know