Civil War was about Slavery. Video inside

[SammyPops]

Rights to buy and sell products outside of the country cheaper without heavy tariffs forcing them to buy from Northern industries.

Free trade eh? How long had this system been in place and why did the south choose their timing?

 

[Captain Davis]

Free trade eh? How long had this system been in place and why did the south choose their timing?

They had been pissed for years, but the westward expansion of slavery issue pushed it to the boiling point.

South Carolina threatened secession over those issues years before 1860.

 

[Captain Davis]

If that were the case why was the 13th amendment part of his platform and the key legislation he pushed for once reelected?

Because that was after he had already committed himself after the EP. If he was so interested in freeing the black man, why wasn't part of his platform in 1860?

 

[SammyPops]

They had been pissed for years, but the westward expansion of slavery issue pushed it to the boiling point.

South Carolina threatened secession over those issues years before 1860.

interesting. Maybe i'll read up about the start of your civil war. Reasons for start of ww1 is fascinating.

 

[MeatheadMike]

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

. If he was so interested in freeing the black man, why wasn't part of his platform in 1860?

Because he knew if it was part of his platform it would guarantee a civil war. He was trying to avoid it.

 

[Captain Davis]

Because he knew if it was part of his platform it would guarantee a civil war. He was trying to avoid it.

Yet he initiated the war with his actions at Fort Sumter.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Yet he initiated the war with his actions at Fort Sumter.

If he didn't resupply the fort, he would be giving a tacit recognition of the states secession. Remember he was trying to avoid that at all costs. It's not his fault the rebels opened fire first.

 

[lfd0311]

people dont kill each other and fight to the death over abstract ideas like "state's rights." [/COLOR] there is a specific "right" that they were concerned about. all you need to do is look at the state congressional documents that ALL of them wrote up, usually titled something like "reasons for secession." they explain exactly what was going on lol.

Yes they do. People have been killing each other over abastract ideas for centuries. That's literally what people are about. That being said, the Civil War was totally about Slavery.

 

[lfd0311]

It wasn't just about slavery, it was about the 10th amendment...you know "Muh states rights" that the left thinks is racist when it suits them. Look if you guys want to tear down monuments of Democrats, go ahead but stop rewriting history.

Yes, it was about State's Rights. The main right at issue was the right to own other people and no other right. People have this weird position that it's one or the other, they aren't mutually exculsive.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Yes they do. People have been killing each other over abastract ideas for centuries. That's literally what people are about. That being said, the Civil War was totally about Slavery.

right you are.

i guess what i meant was, imo, theyd not fight over this particular abstract idea, unless they had a specific state right(s) in mind to fight over. few are going to fight to the death unless they think something is going to impact them in a tangible way imo.

 

[lfd0311]

If he didn't resupply the fort, he would be giving a tacit recognition of the states secession. Remember he was trying to avoid that at all costs. It's not his fault the rebels opened fire first.

I think he had the abstract position of "I would like to preserve the Union without conflict, while also freeing slaves" and the logical position of "There is no possible way to aviod war at this point" combined with his everpresent "Union above all" position on most things led to the rational postion of moving towards war, as war was clearly coming whether he wanted it or not.

 

[lfd0311]

right you are.

i guess what i meant was, imo, theyd not fight over this particular abstract idea, unless they had a specific state right(s) in mind to fight over. few are going to fight to the death unless they think something is going to impact them in a tangible way imo.

I think part of it is our need to quantify the past and attribute monolithic motivations to entire groups of people who did things for a number of reasons. A historian whose name I can't think of once said that humans "have a need to put arbitrary fences around things, the 40's, the 50's, as if these are set markers in time, but life isn't lived that way."

For the Confederate Government, the singular issue behind secession was slavery. Establishing control of the market value of their slaves is literally the first Amendment to their Constitution. As for the individual soldiers who fought the war, there motivations get a lot less clear. The world was just a smaller place for most people back then. People rarely travelled more than 30 miles from the place they were born in an entire life time and were usually concieved, born, grew up in, had children of thier own, and grew old and died in the exact same house. They formed the sort of Nationalistic attachments to States and regions that we today hold to (obviously) Nations. Pride in what they saw as defense of their State and home from someone dictating to them from a far off land was something they considered unacceptable. Many of them, as can be found in thier writings home from the war, saw this as some sort of great opportunity for an adventure that would get them out of that season's harvest. Others went for no other reason than because they were afraid to look like a coward in the eyes of a pretty girl they were trying to impress. We have to think about who these people were. These were mainly incredibly simple, backwoods farm people from 160 years ago whose motivations would seem silly in today's world, signing up to fight in a war that most initially thought would be nothing more than a few boarder skirmishes that may take the better part of the summer.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

I think part of it is our need to quantify the past and attribute monolithic motivations to entire groups of people who did things for a number of reasons. A historian whose name I can't think of once said that humans "have a need to put arbatrary fences around things, the 40's, the 50's, as if these are set markers in time, but life isn't lived that way."

For the Confederate Government, the singular issue behind secession was slavery. Establishing control of the market value of their slaves is literally the first Amendment to their Constitution. As for the individual soldiers who fought the war, there motivations get a lot less clear. The world was just a smaller place for most people back then. People rarely travelled more than 30 miles from the place they were born in an entire life time and were usually concieved, born, grew up in, had children of thier own, and grew old and died in the exact same house. They formed the sort of Nationalistic attachments to States and regions that we today hold to (obviously) Nations. Pride in what they saw as defense of their State and home from someone dictating to them from a far off land was something they considered unacceptable. Many of them, as can be found in thier writings home from the war, saw this as some sort of great opportunity for an adventure that would get them out of that season's harvest. Others went for no other reason than because they were afraid to look like a coward in the eyes of a pretty girl they were trying to impress. We have to think about who these people were. These were mainly incredibly simple, backwoods farm people from 160 years ago whose motivations would seem silly in today's world, signing up to fight in a war that most initially thought would be nothing more than a few boarder skirmishes that may take the better part of the summer.

part of it was a fear of free black labor, too. i also think the governing class of southern society promoted racism, in order to get the non-slave owning lower class on their side politically. "do you really want these 'people' being the same status as you i society???"

 

[lfd0311]

part of it was a fear of free black labor, too. i also think the governing class of southern society promoted racism, in order to get the non-slave owning lower class on their side politically. "do you really want these 'people' being the same status as you i society???"

I don't know if "free black labor" is the best way to describe it, but certainly the fear of the absence of that labor was a major motivator, at least for the upper echelons of society. Most people in the South, even those who weren't massively weathly, were farmers. They weren't laborers. They owned a small plot of land, or they were a member of the professional class, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc. To plantation owners the threat of black people being allowed to exercise free will had to have been terrifying. There weren't enough white laborers to keep up with demand. That's one of the reasons slavery became so popular to begin with, and the idea of not losing lt's labor force to the North is one of the major reasons for the founding of the KKK, outside of just being all around racist A-holes.

 

[Captain Davis]

If he didn't resupply the fort, he would be giving a tacit recognition of the states secession. Remember he was trying to avoid that at all costs. It's not his fault the rebels opened fire first.

He was told point blank that if he refortified the fort it would be taken as an act of war and aggression. He knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Captain Davis]

part of it was a fear of free black labor, too. i also think the governing class of southern society promoted racism, in order to get the non-slave owning lower class on their side politically. "do you really want these 'people' being the same status as you i society???"

The North and South did this.

 

[Captain Davis]

I don't know if "free black labor" is the best way to describe it, but certainly the fear of the absence of that labor was a major motivator, at least for the upper echelons of society. Most people in the South, even those who weren't massively weathly, were farmers. They weren't laborers. They owned a small plot of land, or they were a member of the professional class, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc. To plantation owners the threat of black people being allowed to exercise free will had to have been terrifying. There weren't enough white laborers to keep up with demand. That's one of the reasons slavery became so popular to begin with, and the idea of not losing lt's labor force to the North is one of the major reasons for the founding of the KKK, outside of just being all around racist A-holes.

Also, contrary to popular belief, per capita, there were more Southerners in college than Northerners, for that reason. It was farm or farm for the most part. Education was the only escape from working in the fields.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

He was told point blank that if he refortified the fort it would be taken as an act of war and aggression. He knew exactly what he was doing.

So after campaigning on preserving the Union, and making concessions to keep the South in the Union, you think he should have given his blessing for them to sieze a Federal fort?

 

[lfd0311]

Also, contrary to popular belief, per capita, there were more Southerners in college than Northerners, for that reason. It was farm or farm for the most part. Education was the only escape from working in the fields.

Exactly. The idea of free black labor being something that the average Confederate Soldier would have been afraid of is something that modern revisionists have attached to try them to try to explain it to modern audiences IMO.