Civil War events stir debate over war causes

Civil War events stir debate over war causes

[url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CELEBRATING_SECESSION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-12-10-14-14-22]hosted.ap.org[/ur l]

However, experts such as the chief historian for the National Park Service says it is clear the principal cause of the war was slavery. Groups such as the NAACP are planning to protest the event being held in Charleston later this month.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I am growing weary of the flagrant attempts at changing history. It is well know that the civil war was started not due to slavery but due to state rights. The federal government was trying to usurp the rights of the states to freely trade between each other, but the states were not going to allow their rights to be taken.

I am sure that there are many reasons for trying to change the facts, most glaring one seems to be that the Federal Government doesn't want people to know that we as a people can stand up against them. The other most obvious reason is an attempt at keeping the racial tensions in the Southern states alive, because without racial tensions there is no excuses for failing.

[url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CELEBRATING_SECESSION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-12-10-14-14-22]hosted.ap.org[/ur l]
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


I agree with you. i almost wish the south won because we would have more states rights today. (please dont bring up the slavery thing because im not talking about that)

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

 

I agree with you. i almost wish the south won because we would have more states rights today. (please dont bring up the slavery thing because im not talking about that)

Even if the South had won, slavery would have been gone not long after due to TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT and ECONOMICS.

Simple as that.

Good post if you ask me, I was just talking to a friends kid who 9 and they are learning about the civil war. I asked him if he knew why it was started, he said his teach told them that day it was because of slavery (not that this suprises me), then about 30 min later, the Discovery Channel was showing their Documentry on America, The History. I watched this when it first came out and was highly disapointed when they blamed the civil war on slavery, didnt catch when they talked about the US introducing small pocks to the American Indians, but Im sure they didnt put it in anyway.

reply to post by camaro68ss


Lincoln was a Jacobin Republican, the Republican Party was formed to repeal slavery. Slavery was one of the state rights issues. The Northern states wanted to see it abolished, the South didn't.

Lincoln won the majority of a 5 way race. His administration suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned journalist and dissenters without trial and without bail, his administration greatly increased the power of the executive branch of government. There goal may have been just, but our republic form of government died in this era.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until three years after the war started.

They could have worked things out peacefully, the South could have outlawed slavery and they both could have raised tariff on crops to offset the increase in labor.....IMHO

reply to post by LDragonFire


I agree that the Civil war was a watershed moment for the nation. I agree that our issues with the Federal government began largely after that war.

However, just for the record, and since I don't have research materials available to me at the moment, didn't Lincoln repeatedly state that his intention was not to abolish slavery but restrict it, and stop it's spread?

Granted it may have just been the political approach to the issue, and I doubt he supported slavery in any sense, but had he run on the notion of strict abolition, he may not have been able to win the election - strictly politicking so to speak.

I find it reassuring that he won despite his not being listed on the ballot in 10 states.

No revisionism attempt here, just a question about my understanding of the facts.

Cromwell was a Parliamentarian and wanted to lead the masses towards democracy. Down with the King...............................................

As above........................ the keyboard went mental

reply to post by Maxmars


Like all extremist he did tone down his rhetoric, but it was widely known he would abolish slavery. The states that first seceded from the Union was because Lincoln won the presidency, South Carolina seceded less than a month after the election.

Remember the reason the Republican Party was formed??? To end slavery.....and to end our republic form of government, making the presidency a monarch type figure.

This was the 2nd great power play the ptb used to gain power and influence. The first was the revolution.

Both slavery and states right were connected issues.

The Same Families or [power players] behind the scenes then are the same families behind the scenes now.

reply to post by LDragonFire


Slavery was never the issue. It was used as a tool to garner support that is all. The states rights being questioned were interstate commerce not slavery.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

As I have posted above slavery was indeed one of the reasons for the US civil war,

The political battle to end slavery started in 1817. The debate ended with the formation of the Republican Party [to abolish slavery] and Lincoln [R]. who then won the election and before he even took the oath 6 states had seceded from the Union.

Another way war could have been avoided was is the Supreme Court in the USA would have made proper decisions in Prigs v. Pennsylvania and the Dred Scott decision,but the court continually sided on the side on the south. The first main failing on the court shoulders. The slavery issue was a hot topic all throughout the 1850's and came to a head in the election of 1860.

My father also thought as you do that the war's main reason was states rights [nullification]....I agree with him and you, but slavery was the main states rights issues.

Nullification was the belief that any state could repeal any federal law that was determined to be unconstitutional according to the states constitution. This battle is still ongoing to this day, a state must conform to federal highway speed limits or they will lose funding....and there are many other examples of this.

The tariffs imposed on the South by the Northern states had a two fold intention, one they were attempting to get the South to do away with slavery as the North could not compete, the other purpose was to get the South to pay for there share of taxes from railroads, roads and other projects. The North thought that slavery gave the South a unfair advantage.....it all goes back to slavery.

The north had slaves too
They were at the politest called indentured servants
the republican party was formed to take away rights as we have seen taking place to this day...
(it is bipartisan as it was then...)
its a sorry thing that some might think that they had the peoples' best interests in mind.
they did not.

That they were formed to end slavery was the PR of the day.
The race card then same as now.
just a cover to take away American rights.
if you oppose obama care you are a racist....

funny thing about that health care and your rights.....
well thats another thread.

Think about this:
Lincoln was one of four assassinated presidents
who all have the same thing in common
minting money in order to end DEBT SLAVERY
what happenened?
did the slavery end...?

reply to post by Danbones


As I stated above there stated goal of ending slavery was achieved, there unstated goal to destroy the republic also succeeded.

This was our big fat welcome to our Federal Empire.

The "war on slavery" was the same as todays "war on drugs" and "war on terror". They pick a seemingly just issue and use it as a pretense to take away our rights. This gives them the ability to brand anyone opposed to them as "evil". The fact that all three issues could have been settled much easier without the loss of rights is hardly ever mentioned and when it is those that mention it are tagged with supporting the "enemy"