The U.S. civil war...who was right?n or s?

Originally posted by Amuk
I would be for the South for the reasons you stated.....States rights.

It was never about slavery which was dying out all over the world anyhow and wouldnt have lasted more than a few more years anyway.

The Union victory gave us what we have today BIG GOVERNMENT.

And for the record I am against slavery

Exactly, I'm in for the south as well.
While I am against slavery, I am for states rights.

In light of all that happened, I wonder how it would be today if the south had won the battle??

You still think it would be big government or no? Which direction are we heading in today?

Up until now, I had learned that the civil war was fought over "states rights" and the right for states to nullify federal law. But this year, in US studies, we learned that the civil war was fought over slavery. Slavery had been tearing the nation apart ever since we became a nation, up until 1860 we had kept the union together thanks to compromises made by the north and south. But when Abraham Lincoln became president, South Carolina seceded from the union because they feared that the north would destroy their way of life, and the southern dream, which was to become a property owner someday.

After south carolina seceded, the Confederate states of america was formed. Lincoln decided to send in a supply ship to fort sumter, and the south attacked it, starting the civil war. At first, Licoln told the north that they were fighting the war to preserve the union. But as the war pressed on, Lincoln said that the war was being fought so "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom". In the final stages of the war, Lincoln stated in his second inaugarul address: "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of war."

heres a good question:

should decendants of slaves be allowed to sue the US government?



i say no, but if you do sue, you cant sue the US government. the North owas the United States and the south was the Confederate Satets of america. there fore if they do sue they should only be allowed to sue the states that were part of the confederacAH!

But this year, in US studies, we learned that the civil war was fought over slavery. Slavery had been tearing the nation apart ever since we became a nation, up until 1860 we had kept the union together thanks to compromises made by the north and south.

In a word........Bull#. There were slaves in EVERY state when we first became a nation, north and south.

Abe said himself that it was not over slavery and that the south could keep their slaves if they stayed in the union. There were slaves in the northen states and they were not freed till the end or close to the end of the war. If both sides had slaves how in hell was it a war to free the slaves? If the south was going to be allowed to keep their slaves if they stayed in the union how was it a war to free the slaves? If the north did not free their slaves how was it a war to free the slaves?


It was a war to take control from the states and give it to the federal government, something that some politicans had aimed for from the begining, Hamiltan for one I believe. For us as a Free people it was the begining of the end, because the feds have just grown stronger and stronger.

They tell you it was a war to free the blacks but in reality it was a war to enslave us all. The ones wanting a strong federal government were the same ones that wanted a monarchy in the begining, or the same group anyway. That was not the first uprising for states rights there had been I believe two others.

Why do people that think every word the government says is a lie have such a hard time believing that the bloodest war we have ever fought was fought over a lie?

Slavery would not have lasted over a generation more because it was dying out all over the world at that time.

I will be the first to condem slavery but that was NOT the reason for the war.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is another interesting thread that goes deeper into what I have said here.

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Amuk]

Wow, I had totally forgotten about this thread!

Anyway, all I can say is that the State's Rights argument is simply REVISIONISM. The war was fought because the South knew slavery was becoming less and less common as the Union expanded, and they were worried it would be abolished. Their way of live was being threatened. I'm sure the large non slave-owning majority of southerners, the grunts, the fodder for the war thought they were fighting for freedom and State's rights. Those are just excuses.....

The South felt too strongly about the institution of slavery. There was nothing in the Constitution that provided an exit clause....it could have been written in, but it wasn't. But the South knew that the days of the "peculiar institution" were numbered. Slavery had already gone the wayside in Europe and all other civilized nations.So, the war was fought to preserve this institution, upon which their agrarian economy depended. Without slaves, economic collapse would result. Indeed, after the war, their economy collapsed. It was realigned during reconstruction.

Years later, when the shame of being the only civilized Judeo-Christian people left on earth defending slavery had set in, they attempted to reframe the debate as being about Constitutional law and the right to secede. Which is revisionism. Again, if they felt there should be a right to secede, why didn't anyone propose it in Philadelphia? you can't just invent a new Constitutional right whenever it suits you. That's been well established by 200 years of jurisprudence.

Originally posted by Amuk

In a word........Bull#. There were slaves in EVERY state when we first became a nation, north and south.

Abe said himself that it was not over slavery and that the south could keep their slaves if they stayed in the union. There were slaves in the northen states and they were not freed till the end or close to the end of the war. If both sides had slaves how in hell was it a war to free the slaves? If the south was going to be allowed to keep their slaves if they stayed in the union how was it a war to free the slaves? If the north did not free their slaves how was it a war to free the slaves?

[Edited on 12-3-2004 by Amuk]

During the war, the states that mattered most to the union's victory were the border states: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. These states were divided over whether they should join the Union or the South in the fight. The politicians eventually decided to stay with the Union, because as Lincoln first stated, the war was to fight to preserve the Union. If he had told people that the war was over the fight to end slavery, then the support of the border states would end. As the war went on, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclimation, which freed slaves if they were in territory captured by Union forces. This allowed for part of the enslaved south to be free, and it allowed the North to keep the support of the boreder states. Toward the end of the war, the 14th amendment was introduced, and was later passed.

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Slayer]

I am coping something from the thread I mentioned earlier it presents my case better than I can and is in the words of the northern president and General Grant.....

We have all been taught in school of a man named honest Abe who freed the slaves, but what we fail to realize is how honest Abe set forth the autocratic rule of presidents to come. Linconlns pre-emptive strike on the south was illegal and unconstitutional. The Confederacy had a right to succession from the Union because they were sovereign states when they ratified the constitution. This was not a war about freeing slaves because Lincoln himself stated "I will say, then, that I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of
bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white
and black races. I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of making
voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor
of intermarriage with white people; and I will say, in addition to this,
that there is a physical difference between the white and black races
which, I believe, will forever forbid the two races living together in
terms of social and political equality. Inasmuch as they cannot so live,
while they do remain together, there must be a position of superior and
inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white man." Does this sound like a man wanting to free slaves? We must also consider when was the Emancipation Proclamation written. It was written well after the start of the civil war. It was the Unions General Grant who said before the war "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my
commission, and offer my sword to the other side."


Does this sound like the war was to free the slaves? You admit yourself that they would allow the border states to keep thier slaves.

As far as revisonism goes (sorry about the spelling) you are partly right. The part about freeing the slaves was tacked on toward the end of the war to make it appear to Great Brition and Europe that the war was being fought for a higher moral porpuse other than the economic subjection of the South.

As far as the South revising the history books to make it look like the war was fought for states rights, have you ever heard that history is wrote by the victors not the losers.


How much of say Japans side do you read of in the history of WW2? How about the Mexican side of the Alamo? One of my favorites was my history book in school said that there were no survivers at Little Big Horn. Tell that to a couple thousand Indians. I bet that Japanese and Mexican history books give a different slant to the wars that are just as valid as ours.


I bet you think the Iraqi war was to free the poor downtroden Iraqis dont you? 50 years from now WMDs wont be mentioned in the history books OR the fact that we proped him up till we knocked him down.

History is not always the propaganda they teach you in school.

you can't just invent a new Constitutional right whenever it suits you. That's been well established by 200 years of jurisprudence.

200 years? We had been a country less than 100 years when the civil war started.

And it states that any power not vested in the federal Government lays with the States, in effect stating that since it was not forbiding to sucede that it was in fact legal

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Amuk]

[Edited on 13-3-2004 by Amuk]

Originally posted by Amuk
I am coping something from the thread I mentioned earlier it presents my case better than I can and is in the words of the northern president and General Grant.....

We have all been taught in school of a man named honest Abe who freed the slaves, but what we fail to realize is how honest Abe set forth the autocratic rule of presidents to come. Linconlns pre-emptive strike on the south was illegal and unconstitutional. The Confederacy had a right to succession from the Union because they were sovereign states when they ratified the constitution. This was not a war about freeing slaves because Lincoln himself stated "I will say, then, that I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of
bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white
and black races. I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of making
voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor
of intermarriage with white people; and I will say, in addition to this,
that there is a physical difference between the white and black races
which, I believe, will forever forbid the two races living together in
terms of social and political equality. Inasmuch as they cannot so live,
while they do remain together, there must be a position of superior and
inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white man." Does this sound like a man wanting to free slaves? We must also consider when was the Emancipation Proclamation written. It was written well after the start of the civil war. It was the Unions General Grant who said before the war "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my
commission, and offer my sword to the other side."


Does this sound like the war was to free the slaves? You admit yourself that they would allow the border states to keep thier slaves.

As far as revisonism goes (sorry about the spelling) you are partly right. The part about freeing the slaves was tacked on toward the end of the war to make it appear to Great Brition and Europe that the war was being fought for a higher moral porpuse other than the economic subjection of the South.

As far as the South revising the history books to make it look like the war was fought for states rights, have you ever heard that history is wrote by the victors not the losers.


How much of say Japans side do you read of in the history of WW2? How about the Mexican side of the Alamo? One of my favorites was my history book in school said that there were no survivers at Little Big Horn. Tell that to a couple thousand Indians. I bet that Japanese and Mexican history books give a different slant to the wars that are just as valid as ours.


I bet you think the Iraqi war was to free the poor downtroden Iraqis dont you? 50 years from now WMDs wont be mentioned in the history books OR the fact that we proped him up till we knocked him down.

History is not always the propaganda they teach you in school.

The civil war was no pre-emptive strike on the south - you should check your facts. Lincoln sent in a supply ship with "food for hungry men", and the south attacked it. That started the whole civil war. The south seceded because they feared that their way of life would be abolished by the laws that the northern states were trying to pass. When Abe Lincoln became president, the south feared that he would allow a bill to pass that would end slavery in the US. Abe Lincoln was in favor of abolish slavery, but he was against equal rights for blacks, which is what your quote proves. Your quote says nothing about slavery, only equal rights for whites and blacks. In my history book, it says that the war was fought over states rights. It was my teacher who explained to us how the war was fought over slavery.

BTW - I know why the war in Iraq was fought. It was for oil, and because the PNAC told bush to do it.

The civil war was no pre-emptive strike on the south - you should check your facts.

Where did I say it was? I guess you are extremely lucky to have the one person in the world that knows what the war was over for a teacher. Its a good thing they dont let those pesky facts get in the way.

So when abe said it wasnt over the slaves and Gen Grant said it wasnt over the slaves and just about everything said or written says it wasnt about the slaves it was all just a lie to trick the North into freeing the slaves? If it was over the slaves why did they have to trick them, you know the OTHER slave holding states into freeing them?


Your arguement just doesnt stand up.

YOU need to check the facts instead of believing everything that the PC police tell you.

It was the Unions General Grant who said before the war "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my
commission, and offer my sword to the other side."


What part of this makes you think he was for freeing the slaves?

Amuk you're right the Union wasn't fighting the war to free the slaves. I have no illusions about that point. The victors tried to make it look that way in the history books, but the evidence says otherwise.

Like most wars, this one was about money. The Union was fighting the war to well, preserve the Union. They had financial interests in holding the country together. Just like the South had financial interests in maintaining slavery.

BTW- I knew Lincoln was less than open-minded when it came to race, but the Grant quote is new to me....interesting.

Like most wars, this one was about money. The Union was fighting the war to well, preserve the Union. They had financial interests in holding the country together. Just like the South had financial interests in maintaining slavery.

BINGO!!!!!!

It like probibly EVERY war in history was fought for MONEY.

I will be the FIRST to admit slavery is and was wrong but that dosent change the fact that the war was NOT about slavery. Not to mention the tariffs the North saddled the South with which IMO was a lot more of a cause than slaves.

At the start of the war, Lincoln told everyone that it wasn't about slavery. But at the end of the was, in his first inaugural address, he stated "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."

BTW - My teacher has a PhD in civil war studies, so I think it's safe to listen to him.

At the start of the war, Lincoln told everyone that it wasn't about slavery.

So it was all just a trick that old honest Abe played on the country? You have just proved my point. If the war was to free the slaves why would he have to lie to and say it wasnt? Listen to yourself you are saying that the war was to free the slaves but nobody Knew it and if they did they would not have fought. Can you not see the illogic behind what you are saying? The war was to free the slaves but Abe had to lie and trick everyone into doing the right thing? Give me a break.

Just like today Bush is now telling us that the war was to free the slaves whoops I mean the Iraqis.

Was the war to free the Iraqis?

And one thing you will find out in life is a PHD doesnt mean #. The people that wrote the history books that you said lied also had PHDs.

The victor always writes history, ergo the North was right. But if you really want to understand
the War Between the States (What THEY called it, not Civil War as we call it), strap on your
Time Machine and follow me.
First stop is 1820 :
civilwar.bluegrass.net...
Southerners had been "talking" secession for 40 years since the 1820 Missouri Compromise.
Slavery was a social, and inflamatory issue, but not something either side was willing
to fight over. It wasnt so much money either. It was politics, control. The balance
of power provided by the Missouri Compromise did not leave a "balance" and
the congress of the day voted regional issues always in favor of the north. The slavery
issue had been decided in Europe and the States were following, but slower. The
Congressional "polarization" issue was affecting lives, regions, towns, and not
getting better.

Next stop, the election of 1860:

On 6 Nov, 1860, Lincoln was elected, and viewed as a shock to the
South. New York stock market slumped. Georgia voted a million dollars to arm the
state. South Carolina called for a convention to discuss objections, concluding
with secession on 20 Dec. Several "incidents" began taking place all over, with
everyone crying "wolf". President Buchanan (you thought I was gonna say Lincoln,
didnt you?) took a "do nothing" approach. I probably should more fairly say
"appeasement" but I hate that word. US (Union) forces were ordered not to
fire unless fired upon (in the South). Cooler heads tried to stop this run-away train. In
the Senate,the last compromise bill went nowhere. [ Think about it folks - You are
now Abe Lincoln, but not so soon to be inaugurated. All you can do is watch the news come in. ]
9 Jan, 1861, Mississippi joins South Carolina in secession.
Also on 9 Jan at the Charleston Harbor, artillery shots were fired by a young Citadel cadet
named George E. Haynsworth (of South Carolina), at the unarmed Federal relief ship of Ft. Sumter,
Star of the West, from a battery on Morris Island about a
thousand yards away. Most of the shots missed, but a ricochet struck the fore-chains.
Some historians considered this incident as the first shot of the Civil War.
But it takes both sides to make a fight.
On 10 Jan, Florida secedes, followed by Alabama on the next day. On 19 Jan, it is Georgia's
turn to secede. On the 21st, five southern senators give a farewell speach to congress
including Jefferson Davis. www.civilwarhome.com...
It is now Feb and Texas secedes. The Confederate States of America are formed in
Montgomery Alabama with a constitution adopted on the 8th and
Jefferson Davis is inaugurated as the new president on the 18th. Abe Lincoln had been
traveling during this period, arriving in Washington on the 23rd, and inaugurated as
the 16th President on the 4th of March. (Welcome to the White House - you been
watchin the news? And BTW Mr. President, we got ourselves a really tense situation
in Charlston Harbor, haven't been able to get any supplies to the boys there.)

Lets Move Our time machine up a little over a month. April 12 1861. Lets go
to Charlston Harbor where many say the shot that began the war was at Ft. Sumter.
What we observe shows the first shot actually came from Ft Johnson,
occupied by Confederate forces. The time is 4:30 a.m. A 10-inch mortar belches flame,
smoke -- and a round shell that arches across the water leaving a fiery train from its fuse.
It explodes over Fort Sumter, briefly illuminating the brick fortification
in the darkness. There is some dispute as to who pulled the lanyard on the mortar, but the order
was given by Capt George S. James, who commanded the East Mortar Battery of Ft Johnston.
But did it start the war?

Answer - NO.

We observe no return fire for quite some time. Remember all the other incidents where
a true battle did not rage. Maybe this time will be the same. But oops.... lets take
a closer look at Ft Sumter. The first cannon fire belches out, followed by the rest.
Now, we have a War.

Who fired that cannon, the one that started the formal war?

This is why I luv history cause you aint gonna believe this:

In the late 1870's, the first Cable Car company in San Francisco was founded by
Abner Doubleday. In 1907, the Baseball commission, after investigating all sides
of the controversy over who invented the game, gave credit to Abner Doubleday
for inventing the game in 1835.

He was also the Army Captain who accepted the honor of returning fire on Confederate forces from Ft Sumter.

Home Run or Fowl Ball?

/\/ight\/\/ing

Originally posted by Amuk

At the start of the war, Lincoln told everyone that it wasn't about slavery.

So it was all just a trick that old honest Abe played on the country? You have just proved my point. If the war was to free the slaves why would he have to lie to and say it wasnt? Listen to yourself you are saying that the war was to free the slaves but nobody Knew it and if they did they would not have fought. Can you not see the illogic behind what you are saying? The war was to free the slaves but Abe had to lie and trick everyone into doing the right thing? Give me a break.

Just like today Bush is now telling us that the war was to free the slaves whoops I mean the Iraqis.

Was the war to free the Iraqis?

And one thing you will find out in life is a PHD doesnt mean #. The people that wrote the history books that you said lied also had PHDs.

I can believe that at the begining of the war, the cause was to preserve the union. But ultimatly, I believe that the war was over slavery. The south seceded because they feared that because of the imbalance of representation in congress, slavery would be abolished. The union then went to war because countries have the right to save themselves from self-destruction.

I can believe that at the begining of the war, the cause was to preserve the union. But ultimatly, I believe that the war was over slavery. The south seceded because they feared that because of the imbalance of representation in congress, slavery would be abolished. The union then went to war because countries have the right to save themselves from self-destruction.

How many times do I and just about everyone else on this thread have to show you that slavery was NOT going to be abolished. The Northen states Gaurenteed the South the right to have slaves. Since we have showed you proof time and time again and all you have to back your side is your histiory teacher I really dont see the point behind arguing any more we could have old honest abe tell you himself and you wouldnt believe it

Originally posted by Amuk
I really dont see the point behind arguing any more we could have old honest abe tell you himself and you wouldnt believe it

I think Abe is trying to tell you something: "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."

I think Abe is trying to tell you something: "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."

And this was after or toward the end of the war?

Kinda like everyone knows this war was to free the iraqis