The Civil War Was About Slavery, Seriously

" Civil War Revisionism "
source: goo.gl...

The first thing one learns from reading the books listed above is that America did not need a war to end slavery. Every other Western country that held slaves in the nineteeth century – which included Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Jamaica – freed them peacefully. The South would have done the same before the century was over. If anything, the fact that seven slaveholding states seceded from the Union when Lincoln was elected president would have sped up the process. As several of the historians above point out, many people in the North considered the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law to be an abomination, and the law would have been repealed if Lincoln had allowed the Southern states to go their own way. The Constitution of the Confederate States of American prohibited the importation of slaves (Article I, Section 9); with their supply thus restricted, and slaves now having a place to escape to, slavery in the Confederacy would have ended as it did elsewhere, without war.

Charles Adams in When in the Course of Human Events and Thomas DiLorenzo in The Real Lincoln show in a convincing fashion that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was fought over money and politics. Abraham Lincoln entered office with a political agenda that did not include ending slavery. (Emancipation was introduced as a "war measure," as Lincoln put it, in 1863, in the third year of the war.) Following in the footsteps of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, his idol and mentor, Lincoln sought to create a strong centralized national authority. This would enable him, as president, to implement his long-held agenda of protective tariffs, to shield (Northern) American industries from foreign competition; centralized banking, which would give him control of the money supply; and "internal improvements," i.e., government subsidies to politically favored industries, particularly the railroad and canal-building companies that bankrolled the Republican Party. With no corporate, property, or income taxes then in force, the government's principal source of revenue was import tariffs; and the South, with the greater number of ports, paid 87 percent of the taxes that the federal government collected to fund its operations and pay government salaries. Lincoln was willing to let the South keep its slaves and enforce the Fugitive Slave Law so long as the Southern states remained in the Union and continued to pay its disproportionate percentage of taxes.

The thing I always try and remember, is that when you take individual people with their own individual thoughts and motivations and stick them into a group, they may act as a group but will always retain their individual motivations. It is far too easy to say the war is was or had been about this one thing. But in reality war or conflict involving two or more people will always have the motivations of all the individuals involved. Good or bad, regardless about how we feel about them in retrospect.

The problem with America is people dont know thier own history period. The civil war was all about slavery, however the current confederate flag was adopted in the 1940s far after the civil war had been over and done with as a racist protest to the ending of lynching of African Americans.

a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

ITS soldiers that flag represents not the idea of slavery and rebellion in general.
IT'S been that way until the 60 s with the Hippies and NOW with the Progs in charge. ONCE their gone it will be BACK as a piece of history dispite the attempt to erase it or change what happened.

I agree that the slavery which occurred before the civil war was at least somewhat similar to the slavery which happens in modern times via international companies hiring 3rd world laborers under conditions and terms which would be inexcusable on north american soil. Since a laborer in china lives much better than slave would have lived historically, it's not equal, but in terms of the exploitation of law and of people, it definitely hasn't changed. Hell, I'd go one step further and even say the fishing industry in the US--on many levels--has been slavery. 12+ hour days every day for months. With no health insurance. It's wrong on so many levels that people are exploited this way to reduce costs. It may not be slavery as we commonly know it, but it's only a short distance away from it. It's only because the modern world has greatly lifted living standards and education levels that we fail to identify it. It's the process of exploiting legality and people which is at fault. That's how we can identify it.

So let me ask others here, which stemmed first, hatred of other people who do not look or act like our own kind, or a hatred which stems from the exploitation of others to serve an economic cause?

Maybe we hate/demean/scorn/abuse on that which we exploit because we're trying to deprive it of soul or likeness to ourselves. We do not desire to exploit ourselves or those of our kind, so it's necessary.

it was also about the southern states selling cotton to britian cause they gave a better price. To stop this a tariff was put on exported cotton. southerns sent it there anyway and said screw your tariff. Port of charleston was blockaded and the civil war began

Great so the leaders supported slavery, what about the 500 thousand men in the military at its highest manning.

These ae tge guys that couldn't replace their boots, you really think the rank and file cared about slavery?

originally posted by: WatchingY0u
All those black people in the governmen and the court rule that they are subhuman... That's why they secretly dont even view black people as their equaland never will and black people in their government right there smiling in their face. I dont understand why the people with the jucie of my black people just dont separate themselves from america. Its like what the heck??? That's crazy... Soon black people will be FORCED to separate from america, at that stage they are gonna flee from america...

I hope English is your second language...hehe

Much of this is spoon fed to the ignorant on both sides, and there are also bottom feeders that make a living promoting this crap. In the educated professional world it is rather different. My colleagues at work who are of all races and mixtures look at people based on their abilities and skills. Color has nothing to do with it and tends to be more of a joke than anything else.

When we look at all sides of the issue there are people who do not get ahead in life so they need to blame someone. The ignorant Blacks blame the Whites, the ignorant Whites blame the illegals, and the Asians and Immigrants from down south blame no one and just work...hmmm

When we look at all sides of the issue there are people who do not get ahead in life so they need to blame someone. The ignorant Blacks blame the Whites, the ignorant Whites blame the illegals, and the Asians and Immigrants from down south blame no one and just work...hmmm

Almost had me. La Raza has been making noise about immigration. Amnesty is a big issue around my area. On all sides. All groups of people have an agenda. I won't get into which group is the right group. But the group that wins in the end will be the group that works the hardest and most effectively toward their goals. History can show us that fact. Morality and justice rarely have anything to do with victory.

originally posted by: ColeYounger

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: ColeYounger

If it was about slavery, why was Europe (translation: European banks )so interested?

Because like in every war there was money to be made.

Which is precisely why it wasn't as much about slavery as the OP might think.
Read a detailed history of the Fort Sumter attack.

Oh no the war was over slavery. The reason why the banks backed the south was to make a few bucks they could care less what the war was about.

a reply to: Phototropic

Obviously, there are tons of other sources, because it took me less than an hour to source and write this brief post. There was once a time when I believed the states rights lie. Then I actually read about it.

I'm happy to know that in less than an hour spent on the net one can learn all there is to know about this event in our history.
Perhaps you might spend some time reading something other than the "leaders" writings. When did elected politicians ever tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Take a bit more of your time, a few years maybe, and read the journals and letters of the non-leaders, those who endured the hell of that war.
As an earlier poster pointed out---the "official" reasons for the Vietnam war---to stop communism invading the USA---were rather laughable.
Threads like this make me deeply ashamed of the education system of the USA today.
War is always about money and territory.

a reply to: jonnywhite

hatred is not the same as indifference.

a reply to: Phototropic

The only thing that you have proven was that slavery was a concern. None of those statements come close to proving that it was solely the impetus of the Civil War.

One can glean from the words of Abraham Lincoln, that ending slavery was not the main purpose for the North's invasion of the South:

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

"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." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

These seem to be more on point than the quotes mentioned by yourself. It was clear that there was a certain revulsion to the institution of slavery--even some Southerners called it "that particular institution" rather than calling it out by name, However, the point was and still remains--even from the quotes you cited--that it was a struggle between Southern states and the federal government. It was about control.

a reply to: Phototropic

It was not until 1868, AFTER the civil war, that the United States federal government followed the process of making slavery illegal via constitutional amendment. As far as I'm concerned, that is proof positive the Civil War was about standing up to an out-of-control rampaging dictator in the oval office.

Lincoln forced his hand against the Democratic process, and the South told Lincoln responded correctly that it was not his choice to make. We have always had a fake, fraudulent system by which the US president pretends to follow some sort of set of rules. Lincoln didn't bother playing the game of pretend as if he actually cared what other people thought, so he and the millions of American under his dictatorship suffered the consequences.

Abraham Lincoln did NOT believe in the freedom of speech, and who really knows whether he actually believed slavery was wrong. You never know what a politician really believes. We only know what he did and only know his actions, which mostly involved killing people who defied his false authority.

If the civil war was about slavery then someone forgot to send president Lincoln that memo, to quote Lincoln himself:

." 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 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 this Union

Lincoln didn`t give 2 hoots about why the south left the union, for him the war was all about forcing the southern states back into the union.

The historical documentation and commentary on the Civil War is massive. To take a portion that only supports your view that "it was all about slavery" is tempting. You can take those commentaries, however, and build a case. The case would be faulty and partial, however. Same with the other side. To fully comprehend the period, you would probably need to be a History major that has studied it intensively....and, even then, your biases would probably color your commentary.

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: Phototropic
It was about Money, when have the Rich ever fought for the Poor?

Geesh, what am I saying, these people weren't Poor, they were much worse off, they were Slaves. Todays Rich are now fighting to get back to Slavery, or Indentured Servants at the very least.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Really? Which schools did you go to?

I wonder how it was that I was educated in a public school in the backward state of Kansas and still came out knowing about the Golden Age of Islam and the great civilizations the rose up along the Indus and the MesoAmericas and Egypt and China ...

Oh and that was in the '80s.

Maybe it's the general fact that public education has declined drastically that should be to blame and not some kind of racial agenda, or maybe you just weren't paying attention that day.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

This.

The war was fought on both sides by a lot of people who didn't have stake in the slavery issue one way or the other, so there were other motivations for it.

To break it all down to that one issue is to oversimplify it by far.

That about sums it up.