Civil War was about Slavery. Video inside

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.
It wasn't *all* about slavery, but slavery was certainly the number one catalyst that ignited the war. If South Carolina doesn't secede over slavery, the rest don't join. It could've/would've/should've started elsewhere, but this is what happened in reality, no what if's.

And it wasn't all about states rights either, as the south was for pushing the expansion of slavery westward toward Cali. They didn't like the idea of Lincoln keeping the westbound states free.
 
yea the south was a source of cheap raw materials for northern factories.

and most northerners would be raging racists by today's standards.

but....i do think lincoln's opinion of slavery changed over the years. and the south always knew that their peculiar institution wasnt entirely safe under lincoln, thats why many seceded simply because he won the election. but more importantly, as youve already pointed out, they were worried what would happen in the fed politically, if western states were admitted to the union as free states.
Exactly.

The one thing I'm not sure about and I am going to research is why the South needed to western states to be slave holding? A lot of the new territory was not suitable for planting. The only thing I can guess is political power, because any newly added state would break the tie of free/slave states. If the new states were slave states, the South could depend on the backing and not have to worry about the threat of the entire slave holding territory. From what I've read, the new territory wouldn't be used the same way as the Deep South.

The Southern planters should have done what the North did and abolish slavery in favor of cheap labor. Not only would it have been the right thing to do, it was much more efficient.

I've read where Northern observers came to Southern plantations to observe slave labor and they commented on how inefficient it was. One made the remark that 3 slaves didn't get the work of one factory worker did in the same amount of time. I think a lot of the planters just enjoyed the social status of owning slaves.
 


Can we stop with the fiction that the Civil War was not about slavery.
It was and always will be about slavery.
The main point, is the south was an agriculture economy. They needed slavery in order to keep making money. The rich plantation owners did not want slavery to go away, because it would cut into the bottom line.
The statues belong in a museum, not on public property.


absolutely. a few years ago I flat out tried to prove that the civil war was not about slavery. I wanted it to be true. Simple fact is that it flat out was over slavery. Slavery we should have never had as the founding fathers wanted to do away with that shit when declaring independence from those poofs across the lake.

But not one soldier picked up a rifle in 1861 to free any slave.

LOL, I am just going to prove this wrong right here with unarguable ease

220px-Delany.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Delany
Born May 6, 1812
Charles Town, Virginia (present-day Charles Town, West Virginia), U.S.
Died January 24, 1885 (aged 72)
Wilberforce, Ohio, U.S.
Allegiance
23px-Flag_of_the_United_States_%281861-1863%29.svg.png
United States of America
Union
Service/branch Union Army
Years of service 1863–1865
Rank Major
Battles/wars American Civil War

Martin Robison Delany (May 6, 1812 – January 24, 1885) was an African-American abolitionist, journalist, physician, and writer, and arguably the first proponent of black nationalism.[1] He was one of the first three black people admitted to Harvard Medical School.

Trained as an assistant and a physician, he treated patients during the cholera epidemics of 1833 and 1854 in Pittsburgh, when many doctors and residents fled the city. He worked alongside Frederick Douglass to publish the North Star. Active in recruiting blacks for the United States Colored Troops, he was commissioned as a major, the first African-American field grade officer in the United States Army during the American Civil War.

After the Civil War, he worked for the Freedmen's Bureau in the South, settling in South Carolina, where he became politically active. He ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor and was appointed a Trial Judge. Later he switched his party loyalty and worked for the campaign of Democrat Wade Hampton III, who won the 1876 election for governor.

yea the south was a source of cheap raw materials for northern factories.

and most northerners would be raging racists by today's standards.

but....i do think lincoln's opinion of slavery changed over the years. and the south always knew that their peculiar institution wasnt entirely safe under lincoln, thats why many seceded simply because he won the election. but more importantly, as youve already pointed out, they were worried what would happen in the fed politically, if western states were admitted to the union as free states.

Slaver apologist. Awesome!

War is never about one thing.

But it is overwhelmingly the case that slavery was the reason for the civil war. But hey, post evidence of those other reasons.
 
Exactly.

The one thing I'm not sure about and I am going to research is why the South needed to western states to be slave holding? A lot of the new territory was not suitable for planting. The only thing I can guess is political power, because any newly added state would break the tie of free/slave states. If the new states were slave states, the South could depend on the backing and not have to worry about the threat of the entire slave holding territory. From what I've read, the new territory wouldn't be used the same way as the Deep South.

The Southern planters should have done what the North did and abolish slavery in favor of cheap labor. Not only would it have been the right thing to do, it was much more efficient.

I've read where Northern observers came to Southern plantations to observe slave labor and they commented on how inefficient it was. One made the remark that 3 slaves didn't get the work of one factory worker did in the same amount of time. I think a lot of the planters just enjoyed the social status of owning slaves.

yea the way ive always understood it, is that southern states feared more "free state" representatives in the house of rep and senate. the specifics of why they feared that, im not really sure. it would probably mean they may not be able to force states like Penn to agree to participating in fugitive slave laws through the fed. participation that penn, and others, wanted no part of.

and yea, even today the south is lagging behind in many areas, due to what the wealthy chose to invest their money into in the antebellum period.
 
absolutely. a few years ago I flat out tried to prove that the civil war was not about slavery. I wanted it to be true. Simple fact is that it flat out was over slavery. Slavery we should have never had as the founding fathers wanted to do away with that shit when declaring independence from those poofs across the lake.



LOL, I am just going to prove this wrong right here with unarguable ease

220px-Delany.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Delany
Born May 6, 1812
Charles Town, Virginia (present-day Charles Town, West Virginia), U.S.
Died January 24, 1885 (aged 72)
Wilberforce, Ohio, U.S.
Allegiance
23px-Flag_of_the_United_States_%281861-1863%29.svg.png
United States of America
Union
Service/branch Union Army
Years of service 1863–1865
Rank Major
Battles/wars American Civil War

Martin Robison Delany (May 6, 1812 – January 24, 1885) was an African-American abolitionist, journalist, physician, and writer, and arguably the first proponent of black nationalism.[1] He was one of the first three black people admitted to Harvard Medical School.

Trained as an assistant and a physician, he treated patients during the cholera epidemics of 1833 and 1854 in Pittsburgh, when many doctors and residents fled the city. He worked alongside Frederick Douglass to publish the North Star. Active in recruiting blacks for the United States Colored Troops, he was commissioned as a major, the first African-American field grade officer in the United States Army during the American Civil War.

After the Civil War, he worked for the Freedmen's Bureau in the South, settling in South Carolina, where he became politically active. He ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor and was appointed a Trial Judge. Later he switched his party loyalty and worked for the campaign of Democrat Wade Hampton III, who won the 1876 election for governor.



Slaver apologist. Awesome!



But it is overwhelmingly the case that slavery was the reason for the civil war. But hey, post evidence of those other reasons.
He joined in 1863, two years after the war began. After the EP, not at the onset of the war.

Yeah, a lot of black soldiers picked up a rifle then and even many white soldiers saw the benefits, but I am saying in 1861 when the war began, no one was fighting for slaves.

Lincoln changed the objective two years in because he was losing and issued the EP to disrupt the South.
 
War is never about one thing.

And rarely do the citizens know the truth. Hell this was a long time ago. So funny how everyone is an expert about the cause of the civil war, but we don't even know the real reasons behind the second Iraq war. Was it WMD or Oil or installing an ally in middle east? Who knows? In 100 year idiots will be like it was obviously about WMD and post quotes of GWBush saying so.
 
And rarely do the citizens know the truth. Hell this was a long time ago. So funny how everyone is an expert about the cause of the civil war, but we don't even know the real reasons behind the second Iraq war. Was it WMD or Oil or installing an ally in middle east? Who knows? In 100 year idiots will be like it was obviously about WMD and post quotes of GWBush saying so.
Well, we can't depend on what schools are teaching. I have been researching the Civil War for a while now and I try to look at the events and understand the time period. I try not to read articles that are opinion pieces, just look at the facts and what were the motivating factors which led them to do what they did.

Although it is difficult to find information that isn't written by someone with an agenda. I'm trying to find literature from the time period. Even then, it's usually slanted.

I've researched diaries, letters and memoirs of solidiers and former slaves. That's where I get the majority of my opinion.
 
I have all of this and some in my research. As well as the views of many of the Union generals, Union soldiers, Northern people, Northern laws, and testimonials from former slaves, but...

And when we read "slavery", and it's wording in the Confederate Ordinances of Secession, it's important to know the history behind it.

Yes, the majority of it was based on slavery, but there were no good guys on either side. It was all about greed. It was never about slaves as people.

There were pockets of true abolitionists on both sides of the Mason-Dixon, but they didn't carry any political weight.
I'm glad to know someone else knows history. I am more left leaning but try to hear both sides and discern facts. What is scary is that there used to be a 1:1 ration in the academic teaching community between liberal and conservative. What happened around the 50's and 60's is the rhetoric of the time got more extreme, left started going more left, right started going more right and history started to be redesigned for a political agenda.

Now there is a 30:1 ratio of liberal to conservative history teaching college professors. I don't know about you, but that is terrifying to me, and I'm even more left leaning. What happens is balance gets out of whack and an echo chamber is created. The University is a place that we think we can get unbiased and objective truth, but with these unchecked scales, the result has been the demonization of politically convenient talking points, and the hero worship and idolatry if others.


You really need to look at who the person telling you these facts are, do your own research and leave political and emotional feelings out of it to get the truth. History keeps on repeating the same mistakes because we can't tell and teach what really happened, as the truth is always obscured in a pile of bull shit and one side is always portrayed as the good guys.

The reality of the south was about 1% of the people owned slaves. The majority were poor AF. It is the equivelant of regular Joe's, like you and I, being blamed for the crimes of the George Soros and the Clintons. If you did not go to war, you could fave severe repercussions thru social pressure as well as government pressure.

For the longest time, especially being from Massachusetts, I saw more modern movies like Glory and I hated Johnny Reb with everything I had - Hollywood informed me, and with a stirring soundtrack, that Johnny Reb was attacking Massachusettes because they wanted to keep the black man down and the heroic and angelIc Union fought to free the black man. And if you look at movies closer to the time of the Civil War, like Gone With The Wind, it paints a much different picture, with Sherman burning the south, killing and slaughtering innocent people, raping women and it paints a man ch different picture.

History and the controlling forces always paint the picture o their benefit. I just wish people would realize this. There are never any good forces or intentions in war, other than the poor suckers that think that they are serving and saving their country. And ironically, it was the South seceding that then acted as the catalyst for the Union to put Slavery on the discussion table later in the war, for a plethora of money based and political reasons, but least of all humanitarian ones.

You got it right, my friend.....good and moral men don't ever get political power and they are the ones that are selfless abolitionists or Conscientious Objectors that are chastised, lambasted and raked over the coals by their contemporaries; and certainly they never carry any political weight and only thru their hard work and spreading awareness will political parties take on the fruits of their labors.
 
Well, we can't depend on what schools are teaching. I have been researching the Civil War for a while now and I try to look at the events and understand the time period. I try not to read articles that are opinion pieces, just look at the facts and what were the motivating factors which led them to do what they did.

Although it is difficult to find information that isn't written by someone with an agenda. I'm trying to find literature from the time period. Even then, it's usually slanted.

I've researched diaries, letters and memoirs of solidiers and former slaves. That's where I get the majority of my opinion.

I'm no expert but when I was a young man in the army I made a comment about it being about slavery in front of my my platoon leader. He looked at me like I was a retard and then let me have it. He was a West Point grad and had studied the civil war heavily. He basically described the samething you've been trying to explain to the sherdoggers. He definitely opened my eyes to some of the nuances involved. People like simple though. They don't want the long complicated reason of why a nation would end up in a civil war. They want just narrow all of it down to one thing, slavery. Nothing in life is that simple, let alone a civil war that placed brother against brother.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was about wanting to tax every worker, slaves and free men alike. Instead of just the slave owners? Greed on all sides. But hey, let's delete this thread and pretend it never happened....that will solve everything....
 
And rarely do the citizens know the truth. Hell this was a long time ago. So funny how everyone is an expert about the cause of the civil war, but we don't even know the real reasons behind the second Iraq war. Was it WMD or Oil or installing an ally in middle east? Who knows? In 100 year idiots will be like it was obviously about WMD and post quotes of GWBush saying so.
Exactly!

And the way the puppet masters gain consent for going to war is thru pulling on the heart strings: I.e. How we originally went to Vietnam based on the now know false flag, The Gulf Of Tonkin Incident. It is only thru fearless truth yelling men, like Seymour Hersh,do we find out about what really goes on in war - like the My Lei massacre that saw a group of regular American boy torture, rape and slaughter hundreds of innocent Vietnamese villagers. War brings out the worst in us and we never know why we really go.

Unless all people learn to question and dig deeper, then we will keep getting in these shitshows. I think the wonder of Wikileaks is that it was the first TRUE news source that we have ever had in the modern world, and it rendered precious media/news as being propaganda and lies. This is currently why there is such an assault on our first amendment, as the powers that be are looking to shut it down, shut truth tellers down and censor the Internet. It is much easier to go to war when the pulic is in the dark and eating a steady stream of lies.
 
I'm no expert but when I was a young man in the army I made a comment about it be about slavery in front of my my platoon leader. He looked at me like I was a retard and then let me have it. He was a West Point grad and had studied the civil war heavily. He basically described the samething you've been trying to explain to the sherdoggers. He definitely opened my eyes to some of the nuances involved. People like simple though. They don't want the long complicated reason of why a nation would end up in a civil war. They want just narrow all of it down to one thing, slavery. Nothing in life is that simple, let alone a civil war that placed brother against brother.
Exaxtly, bro: they don't want long complicated reasons.

They want:

We were right. You were wrong. It was about slavery and saving lives.


And that is how people sleep easily at night. Ignorance is bliss.
 
Well, we can't depend on what schools are teaching. I have been researching the Civil War for a while now and I try to look at the events and understand the time period. I try not to read articles that are opinion pieces, just look at the facts and what were the motivating factors which led them to do what they did.

Although it is difficult to find information that isn't written by someone with an agenda. I'm trying to find literature from the time period. Even then, it's usually slanted.

I've researched diaries, letters and memoirs of solidiers and former slaves. That's where I get the majority of my opinion.

I have to hand it to you, you are killing it in this thread and your posts are solid. You've certainly done a lot more research than I have. Good stuff.
 
The statue of Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial could be torn down because in the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln maintained slavery in areas occupied by THE UNION. He also entertained plans to ship black slaves back to Africa.
And this is lost on everyone.

Modern people (atleast the mental midget Antifa variety) think real life is a cross between Django Unchained and Inglorious Bastards. It feels really good to "take some Nazi scalps and fight racist slave owners", but real life is not black and white.
 
He joined in 1863, two years after the war began. After the EP, not at the onset of the war.

Yeah, a lot of black soldiers picked up a rifle then and even many white soldiers saw the benefits, but I am saying in 1861 when the war began, no one was fighting for slaves.

Lincoln changed the objective two years in because he was losing and issued the EP to disrupt the South.

Ah, fair enough did not see the year mention.

Now, it is up to you to prove your claim.

1) You have the abolisionist movement that made this all come to ahead. Now you are saying no abolitionist fought for the union in 1961?
2) the civil war would never have happened if the south ended slavery. Therefore, in effect, every union member was fighting to end slavery. Every rebel fought to keep slavery alive.
Now, whether or not that was in their heart is unknowable. To say there is ZERO on either side of that is ridiculous.
Just like every nazi was fighting to exterminate the jews and take over the world.

I lived in the south for quite a bit. It sucks that you were the people fighting for slavery. Not as bad as the nazis, but pretty fucking bad. No one has proposed a legitimate reason bigger than slavery for the civil war.


This letter from Lincoln is very telling. He said that slavery is irrelevant to him. It is the fact that he thought America could not survive with slavery is why he went to war. If that is not THE STATEMENT on slavery being the cause for the civil war then get busy proving it.

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views." - Lincoln.
 
Well, we can't depend on what schools are teaching. I have been researching the Civil War for a while now and I try to look at the events and understand the time period. I try not to read articles that are opinion pieces, just look at the facts and what were the motivating factors which led them to do what they did.

Although it is difficult to find information that isn't written by someone with an agenda. I'm trying to find literature from the time period. Even then, it's usually slanted.

I've researched diaries, letters and memoirs of solidiers and former slaves. That's where I get the majority of my opinion.
And this is another reason there is still resentment in The South today. They heard the truth from their grand pappies, relatives, read their anscetora diaries and letters back home, and when the truth is blatantly painted as something totally different, when history is rewritten and shoved down your throat, it creates a deep seated anger & resentment.

This is also why the southern strategy was so effective by the Dixiecrats and Republicans as of late. People were furious, felt abandoned, discarded and understandly disrespected, and when a political party comes in and appeals to that anger, offers you hope, you rally behind them.
 
This thread has more good posts than I have seen in the WR in a while.
 
I'm no expert but when I was a young man in the army I made a comment about it be about slavery in front of my my platoon leader. He looked at me like I was a retard and then let me have it. He was a West Point grad and had studied the civil war heavily. He basically described the samething you've been trying to explain to the sherdoggers. He definitely opened my eyes to some of the nuances involved. People like simple though. They don't want the long complicated reason of why a nation would end up in a civil war. They want just narrow all of it down to one thing, slavery. Nothing in life is that simple, let alone a civil war that placed brother against brother.
Going to war to free slaves sounds far more noble than going to war over greed and political power.
 
What i'm saying is that its easy to sweep the civil war to be about nothing but slavery. That way you don't have to have an intellectual discussion about the arguments pro/con with the confederacy. minimizing the conflict to 'only slavery' rewrites history and doesn't provide a full context for both sides of the war but as we have seen with the massive censorship raids recently, many don't want dialogue, they want conformity


Tearing down history and rewriting the conflict...

Right? Here's Alexander Stephens, Confederate VP, in his well loved (by the Southern rebel states) Cornerstone speech.

Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Wasn't about slavery at all........
 
Back
Top