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

Somewhere in heaven and hell, all the people from that era are facepalming at a bunch of stooges arguing about their motives 150 years later.
 
luckyshot said:
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?)


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?


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?


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.
Click to expand...
It benefitted the north because of the tariffs that were put on the south buying goods that needed to be imported.

These tariffs were so high that it forced the South to buy it's goods from the Northern industries rather than getting them from England or Europe.

Do some reading bud.
 
For the south the war was about states rights and the bigest right was slavery.

For the north it was about preserving the union and the raw materials they got from the south.

The south was no more evil then the north.

Very few northern soliders fought to free the slaves and large numbers didn't want to fight at all.

"The New York draft riots (July 13–16, 1863), known at the time as Draft Week,[3] were violent disturbances in Lower Manhattan, widely regarded as the culmination of working-class discontent with new laws passed by Congress that year to draft men to fight in the ongoing American Civil War. The riots remain the largest civil and racial insurrection in American history, aside from the Civil War itself"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
 
Anybody who says that the Civil War wasn't about slavery is usually a racist.
 
Tiberius6682 said:
Somewhere in heaven and hell, all the people from that era are facepalming at a bunch of stooges arguing about their motives 150 years later.
Click to expand...
But is it heaven or hell, and who is where? That seems to be the question...
 
Captain Davis said:
It benefitted the north because of the tariffs that were put on the south buying goods that needed to be imported.

These tariffs were so high that it forced the South to buy it's goods from the Northern industries rather than getting them from England or Europe.

Do some reading bud.
Click to expand...
<36>

Yeah, OK. The whole thing was over some tariff or something. What a flimsy, trash argument.

And this tariff necessitated the abolition of Southern slavery how exactly?

How about you do some reading, bud?

"Debunking the Civil War Tariff Myth
PUBLISHED ON March 2, 2015
Marc-William Palen
History Department, University of Exeter
Follow on Twitter @MWPalen

The outbreak of the American Civil War is now more than 150 years past. All the while, the question of what caused the conflict continues to spark disagreement, this despite a longstanding consensus among specialists that slavery – a cultural, political, ideological, and economic institution that permeated (and divided) mid-19th-century American society – was the primary cause of the war. One of the most egregious of the so-called Lost Cause narratives instead suggests that it was not slavery, but a protective tariff that sparked the Civil War.

On 2 March 1861, the Morrill Tariff was signed into law by outgoing Democratic President James Buchanan to protect northern infant industries. A pernicious lie quickly formed around the tariff’s passage, a lie suggesting that somehow this tariff had caused the US Civil War. By ignoring slavery’s central role in precipitating secession and Civil War, this tariff myth has survived in the United States for more than a century and a half – and needs to be debunked once and for all.

In trying to make their case but lacking adequate evidence for the 1860-61 period, “Lost Cause” advocates instead commonly hark back to the previously important role that another protective tariff had played in the 1832 Nullification Crisis. They then (mistakenly) assume the political scenario to have been the same three decades later – that southern secession from 1860-61 was but a replay of the divisive tariff politics of some thirty years before. From this faulty leap of logic, the argument then follows that the Republican Party’s legislative efforts on behalf of the Morrill Tariff from 1860 until its March 1861 passage became the primary reason for southern secession – and thus for causing the Civil War.

Because of the unfortunate timing of the Morrill Tariff’s passage – coinciding closely as it did with the secession of various southern states – this has remained perhaps the most tenacious myth surrounding the Civil War’s onset, and one that blatantly ignores the decidedly divisive role of slavery in mid-century American politics and society. Accordingly, the sesquicentennial of the Civil War has witnessed a slew of ahistorical tariff-centered explanations for the conflict’s causation, articles like “Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War,” which appeared in Forbes Magazine in June 2013. Although the article was quickly pulled from the Forbes website following a rapid response from historians on Twitter (#twitterstorians), this particular piece of tariff fiction still exists on the author’s website as well as in a local Virginia newspaper, the Daily Progress.[1]

Similar tariff-driven arguments for the war’s causation continue to be given voice in American news outlets, in viral Youtube videos, and even on a recent Daily Show episode:No, not by host Jon Stewart, but by that evening’s guest, Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX news analyst and NYC law professor. In response to Stewart’s question “Why did Abraham Lincoln start the Civil War?”, Napolitano answered: “Because he needed the tariffs from the southern states.”[2]

The Civil War’s tariff myth has somehow survived for more than a century and a half in the United States. Let’s put an end to it.

In debunking the tariff myth, two key points quickly illustrate how the tariff issue was far from a cause of the Civil War:

1. The tariff issue, on those rare occasions in which it was even mentioned at all, was utterly overwhelmed by the issue of slavery within the South’s own secession conventions.
2. Precisely because southern states began seceding from December 1860 onwards, a number of southern senators had resigned that could otherwise have voted against the tariff bill. Had they not resigned, they would have had enough votes in the Senate to successfully block the tariff’s congressional passage.

In other words, far from causing the Civil War or secession, the Morrill Tariff of March 1861 became law as a result of southern secession."

https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/
 
luckyshot said:
Let's end the moral relativism once and for all.
Click to expand...
Civil war was about whether a State can leave the Union. Slavery is what precipitated the South to secede, not the North to declare war.

The North did not really care about slavery until they no longer needed it.

Grew up in MA. Not the south.
 
luckyshot said:
<36>

Yeah, OK. The whole thing was over some tariff or something. What a flimsy, trash argument.

And this tariff necessitated the abolition of Southern slavery how exactly?

How about you do some reading, bud?

"Debunking the Civil War Tariff Myth
PUBLISHED ON March 2, 2015
Marc-William Palen
History Department, University of Exeter
Follow on Twitter @MWPalen

The outbreak of the American Civil War is now more than 150 years past. All the while, the question of what caused the conflict continues to spark disagreement, this despite a longstanding consensus among specialists that slavery – a cultural, political, ideological, and economic institution that permeated (and divided) mid-19th-century American society – was the primary cause of the war. One of the most egregious of the so-called Lost Cause narratives instead suggests that it was not slavery, but a protective tariff that sparked the Civil War.

On 2 March 1861, the Morrill Tariff was signed into law by outgoing Democratic President James Buchanan to protect northern infant industries. A pernicious lie quickly formed around the tariff’s passage, a lie suggesting that somehow this tariff had caused the US Civil War. By ignoring slavery’s central role in precipitating secession and Civil War, this tariff myth has survived in the United States for more than a century and a half – and needs to be debunked once and for all.

In trying to make their case but lacking adequate evidence for the 1860-61 period, “Lost Cause” advocates instead commonly hark back to the previously important role that another protective tariff had played in the 1832 Nullification Crisis. They then (mistakenly) assume the political scenario to have been the same three decades later – that southern secession from 1860-61 was but a replay of the divisive tariff politics of some thirty years before. From this faulty leap of logic, the argument then follows that the Republican Party’s legislative efforts on behalf of the Morrill Tariff from 1860 until its March 1861 passage became the primary reason for southern secession – and thus for causing the Civil War.

Because of the unfortunate timing of the Morrill Tariff’s passage – coinciding closely as it did with the secession of various southern states – this has remained perhaps the most tenacious myth surrounding the Civil War’s onset, and one that blatantly ignores the decidedly divisive role of slavery in mid-century American politics and society. Accordingly, the sesquicentennial of the Civil War has witnessed a slew of ahistorical tariff-centered explanations for the conflict’s causation, articles like “Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War,” which appeared in Forbes Magazine in June 2013. Although the article was quickly pulled from the Forbes website following a rapid response from historians on Twitter (#twitterstorians), this particular piece of tariff fiction still exists on the author’s website as well as in a local Virginia newspaper, the Daily Progress.[1]

Similar tariff-driven arguments for the war’s causation continue to be given voice in American news outlets, in viral Youtube videos, and even on a recent Daily Show episode:No, not by host Jon Stewart, but by that evening’s guest, Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX news analyst and NYC law professor. In response to Stewart’s question “Why did Abraham Lincoln start the Civil War?”, Napolitano answered: “Because he needed the tariffs from the southern states.”[2]

The Civil War’s tariff myth has somehow survived for more than a century and a half in the United States. Let’s put an end to it.

In debunking the tariff myth, two key points quickly illustrate how the tariff issue was far from a cause of the Civil War:

1. The tariff issue, on those rare occasions in which it was even mentioned at all, was utterly overwhelmed by the issue of slavery within the South’s own secession conventions.
2. Precisely because southern states began seceding from December 1860 onwards, a number of southern senators had resigned that could otherwise have voted against the tariff bill. Had they not resigned, they would have had enough votes in the Senate to successfully block the tariff’s congressional passage.

In other words, far from causing the Civil War or secession, the Morrill Tariff of March 1861 became law as a result of southern secession."

https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/
Click to expand...
What you don't seem to understand is that there was a lot of history and events that led up to the war. South Carolina threatened secession in the 1830's over those flimsy tariff's.

You are downplaying just how much the south was being forced into buying from the north.

The debates over these tariffs were going on throughout the entire early to mid 1800's.

Again, show me one document or quote that relates the Civil War to freeing the slaves due to humanitarian purposes.
 
UJustGotChaeld said:
Civil war was about whether a State can leave the Union. Slavery is what precipitated the South to secede, not the North to declare war.

The North did not really care about slavery until they no longer needed it.

Grew up in MA. Not the south.
Click to expand...
First of all, the north never needed slavery. There were never a huge number of slaves in the North. By saying the north "no longer needed it," I assume you are falling into the same error many others fall into, that the "North was industrialized." No it wasn't. The North had industry, but as of 1860 it was still vastly, overwhelmingly an agricultural society as was the whole country.

But you admit that the North really did care about slavery eventually. So, ok, that's that.

(And by the way, I am of the opinion that the North never should have fought the Civil War.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe
Elections Nikki Haley confused about cause of the civil war
11 12 13
Replies
248
Views
10K
Andy Capp
Andy Capp
Mack Yancy
Social I still don't understand why slavery is blamed on white Americans
16 17 18
Replies
352
Views
14K
Mack Yancy
Mack Yancy

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,695
Messages
55,435,401
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top