FACT: The Civil War WAS @ Slavery and the Confederacy Was EVIL

[SammyPops]

Society needs to have half of the intestinal fortitude of the citizens back then.

We aren't truly willing to fight for anything we believe in.

We are far too comfortable now.

Nazi vs. Islam ftw!

 

[lilelvis]

I hate NASCAR too. Never been to a race at Talladega.

Talladega is an utterly shitty town.

It must be pretty fucking bad if you live in Montgomery and feel that way. Whew....

 

[luckyshot]

Because it is a lie. If it was over slavery, the south would have agreed to the Corwin Agreement, but they didn't.

The Corwin Amendment didn't pass because the Northern states wouldn't ratify it. It was a last ditch effort and the southern states couldn't have agreed with it because most of them had already seceded by the time it was introduced.

 

[Captain Davis]

It must be pretty fucking bad if you live in Montgomery and feel that way. Whew....

Montgomery is shitty on a larger scale.

I grew up to n Montgomery, but I live outside the city now.

 

[Captain Davis]

The Corwin Agreement didn't pass because the Northern states wouldn't ratify it. It was a last ditch effort and the southern states couldn't have agreed with it because most of them had already seceded by the time it was introduced.

But it was Loncoln giving the South what it wanted as far as slavery.

Lincoln was no abolitionist.

 

[King of Fists]

The USA is EVIL and has subjugated more nations and enslaved more innocents than the Confederacy could have ever dreamed of.

Well they're doing a shitty job at it, if we have enslaved all these people then why aren't goods cheaper. We have all these slaves, right?

 

[Limbo Pete]

But it was Loncoln giving the South what it wanted as far as slavery.

Lincoln was no abolitionist.

I think you and I could have an interesting conversation about this.

 

[JadeOwl]

None of that says anything about the war being over freeing slaves because slavery was in humane.

The abolitionist movement in the North was all about freeing the slaves because the institution of slavery was considered evil. But the vast majority of the Northerners wouldn't have gone to war over it.

The mistake you make is to assume that both sides fought the war for the same reason. That's not the case. The South seceded and started the war because they wanted to protect and preserve slavery. The North fought the war because they wanted to preserve the Union. The North wouldn't have gone to war to free the slaves. Nobody is claiming they did.

But that in no way detracts from the fact that the reason why the South caused and started the war was slavery.

 

[Captain Davis]

I'm hesitant to jump in here because I want to save up as much discussion as possible for the upcoming debate.
Tempting.

I'm trying to refrain, but...

 

[lilelvis]

Montgomery is shitty on a larger scale.

I grew up to n Montgomery, but I live outside the city now.

I drive around the south side a few times per month. I make a point to not stop. I know there are some decent parts too. I just don't see them.

 

[ripskater]

The north was also racist. And Lincoln was ready to sign a deal to keep slavery alive in the south if it kept the south with the union. I can't remember that Bill.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I'm trying to refrain, but...

 

[luckyshot]

But it was Loncoln giving the South what it wanted as far as slavery.

Lincoln was no abolitionist.

I never said he was. Lincoln was a pragmatist. However, as usual, pragmatists were in the minority. The Civil War happened because the nation as a whole was bitterly divided over slavery.

The north was also racist.

So the South was willing to FIGHT A WAR to try to preserve slavery, but that's OK because the North (which was willing to fight a war to end slavery) was "also racist." Cool.

That's like the Nazis saying, "You know, there is antisemitism in America, too."

The abolitionist movement in the North was all about freeing the slaves because the institution of slavery was considered evil. But the vast majority of the Northerners wouldn't have gone to war over it.

The mistake you make is to assume that both sides fought the war for the same reason. That's not the case. The South seceded and started the war because they wanted to protect and preserve slavery. The North fought the war because they wanted to preserve the Union. The North wouldn't have gone to war to free the slaves. Nobody is claiming they did.

But that in no way detracts from the fact that the reason why the South caused and started the war was slavery.

I think you have some points, but don't underestimate the importance of Northern abolitionism. It was a BIG part of the war.

The South would have never seceded if Northern abolitionism wasn't a real threat. Politicians from progressive states used abolitionism to get elected, and once they were in Washington they had every intention of trying to deliver on their promises.

Abraham Lincoln saw the impossibility of holding the North (and therefore the union) together without embracing abolitionism, on which he was personally lukewarm.

As Lincoln himself said to Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom's Cabin), "So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war."
https://www.harrietbeecherstowecenter.org/utc/impact.shtml

Uncle Tom's Cabin sold 1.3 million copies the year it was published. It was easily the best selling book of its century after the Bible. That didn't happen because a lot of people didn't really care about abolition.

 

[Captain Davis]

The abolitionist movement in the North was all about freeing the slaves because the institution of slavery was considered evil. But the vast majority of the Northerners wouldn't have gone to war over it.

The mistake you make is to assume that both sides fought the war for the same reason. That's not the case. The South seceded and started the war because they wanted to protect and preserve slavery. The North fought the war because they wanted to preserve the Union. The North wouldn't have gone to war to free the slaves. Nobody is claiming they did.

But that in no way detracts from the fact that the reason why the South caused and started the war was slavery.

I don't deny that. What I am arguing is that when most people talk about the war being over slavery, they assume it was a moral issue. It was not. It was an economic issue. The South was agriculture based, so they benefited from the free labor. The north was industry based, they got rid of slavery when it no longer benefited them.

However, the federal government decided to tariff the shit out of the south and force them to buy from northern companies. The south didn't appreciate it.

Furthermore, the struggle for commerce and westward expansion became the real issue. The addition of these lands were going to tip the balance of power, commerce and influence and both the north and south wanted their way of life to advance.

It in no way had anything to do with slaves as people, only what their labor did for the economy.

 

[Captain Davis]

I drive around the south side a few times per month. I make a point to not stop. I know there are some decent parts too. I just don't see them.

I grew up on the south side, lol

It has changed...

 

[luckyshot]

I don't deny that. What I am arguing is that when most people talk about the war being over slavery, they assume it was a moral issue. It was not. It was an economic issue. The South was agriculture based, so they benefited from the free labor. The north was industry based

This is overstated. Although the industrial revolution was happening, the nation was still overwhelmingly agrarian. There were a LOT of farmers in the North (the vast majority of the population). In fact, the North produced more crops and farm goods than the South as a whole.

(Also, why can't a factory benefit from free labor just as much as a farm?)

The north was industry based, they got rid of slavery when it no longer benefited them.

Why did slavery cease to benefit the North all of a sudden? As I said, the great majority of the Norther population were still farmers. Why couldn't they benefit from slaves?

Even if you are right, though, the bigger point is, how did abolishing Southern slavery benefit the North economically?

Furthermore, the struggle for commerce and westward expansion became the real issue. The addition of these lands were going to tip the balance of power, commerce and influence and both the north and south wanted their way of life to advance.
.

Absolutely. And the northern way of life did not include slavery, while the southern way of life did. How is this not a moral issue? Isn't one's "way of life" another byword for their ethics and values?

It in no way had anything to do with slaves as people, only what their labor did for the economy.

Once again, to have a coherent, plausible argument, you've got to show how the abolition of Southern slavery actively benefited the North economically.

It just didn't. Not nearly to the extent needed to justify the Civil War.

 

[Armbars]

People did evil shit
People still do evil shit
People are going to do evil shit in future.

 

[lilelvis]

Once again, to have a coherent, plausible argument, you've got to show how the abolition of Southern slavery actively benefited the North economically.

It just didn't. Not nearly to the extent needed to justify the Civil War.

Tax Base. Southern land owners property tax was pretty fucking important to the Federal Gubment.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

those are completely fair pts, the problem is IMO the average person I've met that say supports the ol stars and bars isn't able to articulate what you just did

which leads others, i.e. non southerners, to assume the worst. I used to myself, until I moved to VA and saw firsthand that at least nowadays it really does have some Southern Pride attached to it that is hard to understand if you're not raised in that environment

What part of VA did you reside in , man?

 

[Deleted member 409801]

The abolitionist movement in the North was all about freeing the slaves because the institution of slavery was considered evil. But the vast majority of the Northerners wouldn't have gone to war over it.

The mistake you make is to assume that both sides fought the war for the same reason. That's not the case. The South seceded and started the war because they wanted to protect and preserve slavery. The North fought the war because they wanted to preserve the Union. The North wouldn't have gone to war to free the slaves. Nobody is claiming they did.

But that in no way detracts from the fact that the reason why the South caused and started the war was slavery.

Very reasonable answer , and far cry from the insinuation that every individual Yankee soldier was some moral mercenary laying down their lives for the slaves , or that every Southern guy swept up into the conflict was some morally devoid Klans man.