Started By
Message
re: Do you think the Civil War was started over slavery?
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:45 pm to The Spleen
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:45 pm to The Spleen
Of course not. Blacks were not treated as equal citizens in the North either.
0
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:46 pm to BlackPawnMartyr
Alexander Stephens articulated several grievances against the Federal Government. But the issue of the expansion or prohibition of slavery in the new territories to the West was what brought things to a head. The Republican Party was against the spreading of slavery. Southern states began seceding as a result of Lincoln's electoral victory. SC then fired on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln declared the Southern states in a state of rebellion and war ensued.
The slavery issue led to secession, which triggered the shooting war. Sure, the South didn't like the tariff, but they didn't secede over federal tax policy.
The slavery issue led to secession, which triggered the shooting war. Sure, the South didn't like the tariff, but they didn't secede over federal tax policy.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:47 pm to scrooster
quote:
was that war started over slavery ... frick no. Absolutely not.
Incorrect. It was most definitely a prime factor. Not the only one (no war is ever started over a single issue), but a major one.
quote:
slavery was dead before the shots were ever fired at Fort Sumter and everyone knew it.
I think ol' boy who spoke that speech would disagree
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:49 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
The war was about States' Rights, namely the right of states to support slavery.
.... among many many other things, much as things are attached to bills and legislation even today. Package deals so-to-speak, in order to make everyone on one side or the other politically happy.
Slavery had been an issue in the country since its inception. Discussing whether or not to outlaw it was something the Founding Fathers actually debated ... begin by answering the question, "why did the Founding Fathers not outlaw slavery in the U.S. Constitution?" Outlaw it from the get-go?
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:51 pm to deltaland
quote:
I would imagine 75% of this board could not comprehend the English in which he used in that speech
After reading some of the commentary in this thread, I suspect your percentage is somewhat low.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:54 pm to PikeBishop
quote:
The Republican Party was against the spreading of slavery. Southern states began seceding as a result of Lincoln's electoral victory. SC then fired on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln declared the Southern states in a state of rebellion and war ensued.
The slavery issue led to secession, which triggered the shooting war.
Long story short.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:54 pm to scrooster
quote:
"why did the Founding Fathers not outlaw slavery in the U.S. Constitution?" Outlaw it from the get-go?
Because they owned slaves.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:54 pm to scrooster
quote:
"why did the Founding Fathers not outlaw slavery in the U.S. Constitution?"
Because most of them benefited economically from it, and the rest knew it was a requirement for the new nation's economy at that time.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:55 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Why didn't they build any textile mills in the South?
That I don't know, wasn't there but I can speculate that possibly the south wasn't equipped for industrialization and that the existing mills in the north would stop at nothing to protect their cash cow. This is just speculation on my part as I'm not versed in this area of American history as well as I should be.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:57 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
I think ol' boy who spoke that speech would disagree
One goddamn speech outta 1000s?
Just stfu if you are going to debate it like that Tbird. One speech, citing one example of anything ... that's ignorant as frick and I think more of you than that. You're not that stupid so try to open-up your mind a bit.
Let's talk if you want to actually stick around and learn something other than that one-sided bullshite that was poured in your head from birth.
We Southerners long ago came to grips with both sides of the story ... between wadding through the historical record and what's been passed down among our families by way of letters, journals and diaries - we've probably got the best handle on how things went down.
Sure, slavery was an issue. "Prime" is a play on words. That's like saying the "prime" problem we have with ISIS is that they are Muslim. It's horseshite but it's what they, and many others, want everyone to believe.
The issues that evoked and sparked the Civil Wars were far far deeper than just slavery.
Now, I've got to go meet with someone real quick about a bottle of Blantons and a basketball game verses the corndogs. But I'll return after the game to continue this conversation if you really want to go there ... it might be good. I doubt it. These conversations are like politics and religion. They rarely make a tangible difference.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 5:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Because most of them benefited economically from it, and the rest knew it was a requirement for the new nation's economy at that time.
EXCACTLY! Yankees and Southerners alike relied on the South's agriculture and exports at the time ... the country was basically funded by the money from The South for most of it's first 150 years of existence.
So what changed in 1860?
Posted on 2/12/15 at 6:00 pm to scrooster
quote:
what's been passed down among our families by way of letters, journals and diaries
quote:
one-sided bullshite
Posted on 2/12/15 at 6:00 pm to scrooster
quote:
frick you little snot nosed prick liberal bitches. Learn to actually recognize and research the truth for yourselves ... don't fall for the bullshite in your lives. One day I pray to God y'all learn what a bunch of sheep you've all become to the politically correct bullshite.
Says the hypocrite who supports Western Imperialism of the Middle East.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 6:00 pm to scrooster
quote:
So what changed in 1860?
The world, and more specifically the economy, changed.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 6:05 pm to scrooster
quote:
One goddamn speech outta 1000s?
Yessir. One from a leader of the Confederacy. You can't toss that aside because it doesn't jive with your narrative, old sport.
quote:
Just stfu if you are going to debate it like that Tbird.
No, sir.
quote:
Let's talk if you want to actually stick around and learn something other than that one-sided bullshite that was poured in your head from birth.
You forget that I was raised to think critically. I wasn't fed public or private school party lines, so save that little rant.
quote:
Sure, slavery was an issue. "Prime" is a play on words.
Incorrect. "Prime" merely demonstrates the magnitude of said issue.
quote:
That's like saying the "prime" problem we have with ISIS is that they are Muslim.
Except no one in power is insinuating that. Horrible analogy. Our prime problem with ISIS is their terroristic tactics.
quote:
The issues that evoked and sparked the Civil Wars were far far deeper than just slavery.
You'll notice I never intimated that slavery was the sole reason. Only that it was a prime one, and a legitimate underpinning for the other issues that are bandied about.
quote:
I'll return after the game to continue this conversation if you really want to go there ... it might be good. I doubt it.
It definitely won't be with your incorrigible attitude.
Regardless, I'll be here.
This post was edited on 2/12/15 at 6:06 pm
Posted on 2/12/15 at 6:12 pm to Stonehog
Most Northerners in the 2 decades leading to the war were extremely racist and passed a Black Laws requiring freedmen to purchase and carry a Certificate of Freedom. Illinois had a law that any black man from outside the state who stayed more than ten days was fined $50.00. Their Certificate of Freedom had to be shown upon entering the State....as well as their children's. They could not vote. They could not sue or testify against a white person. Blacks found in groups of 3 or more in public were arrested and jailed and forced to pay a fine. Laws permitted captured run away slaves to receive up to 35 lashes as well as being shipped back to their owners.
Most of the above laws were in Lincoln's home state of Illinois. Illinois was the most strict but some form of blacks laws existed in all Northern States. The fact is that the a Northern Legislatures sent a message loud and clear. The message being "We do not want you here." The reason that they were not wanted was due to political pressure from white wage earners, especially from the enormous influxes of white immigrants who desired wages better than what could be demanded with a large black population. The North wanted to bring the South to its economic knees by ending slavery.
So yes, the war was centered around the issue of slavery. But from a purely economical perspective rather than a magnaminous gesture of morality often cited by modern day Northerners ignorant of history.
Most of the above laws were in Lincoln's home state of Illinois. Illinois was the most strict but some form of blacks laws existed in all Northern States. The fact is that the a Northern Legislatures sent a message loud and clear. The message being "We do not want you here." The reason that they were not wanted was due to political pressure from white wage earners, especially from the enormous influxes of white immigrants who desired wages better than what could be demanded with a large black population. The North wanted to bring the South to its economic knees by ending slavery.
So yes, the war was centered around the issue of slavery. But from a purely economical perspective rather than a magnaminous gesture of morality often cited by modern day Northerners ignorant of history.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 6:16 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:
yes, the war was centered around the issue of slavery. But from a purely economical perspective rather than a magnaminous gesture of morality
Most definitely agreed.
This post was edited on 2/12/15 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 2/12/15 at 6:18 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:
The North wanted to bring the South to its economic knees by ending slavery.
So yes, the war was centered around the issue of slavery. But from a purely economical perspective rather than a magnaminous gesture of morality often cited by modern day Northerners ignorant of history.
Well yes they werent going to just let the southerners walk away with all their money...
quote:
9) Many firms on Wall Street made fortunes from funding the slave trade.
Investment in slavery was one of the most profitable economic activities throughout most of New York’s 350 year history. Much of the financing for the slave economy flowed through New York banks. Marquee names such as JP Morgan Chase and New York Life all profited greatly from slavery. Lehman Brothers, one of Wall Street’s largest firms until 2008, got its start in the slave economy of Alabama. Slavery was so important to the city that New York was one the most pro-slavery urban municipalities in the North.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 6:27 pm to scrooster
quote:The Republicans were elected? Nobody on either side really believed any of that bullshite from Lincoln about only about keeping the Union together. It was kind of like Obama pretending he was against gay marriage.
So what changed in 1860?
Here are Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia giving, in their own words, the causes for secession.
Words that do not appear in any of these four documents: tariff, cotton, farming
Words that appear a lot: slavery
Posted on 2/12/15 at 6:31 pm to Iosh
BUT THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS, IOSH!!! 
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News