The truth about slavery and the civil war.

Let us start out with Lincoln himself, the man that wanted to free the slaves right…

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry 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 on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the 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 race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

-Abraham Lincoln

Today’s history makes you think everyone in the south owned slaves. This is not true. Only the top 20% in the south owned slaves. No regular southern country boy was going to war for the rich to lose his life over a slave and at that time, for someone else's property.

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”


Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864

Little do you know Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, wanted the slaves free, he even wanted a black regiment under his command and petitioned for it.

The war was about the north, with an ever growing population, holding more power via vote over the southern states. it was about subjugation, it was about states’ rights and LIBERTYS. The north, having completely different values then the southern states, having the ability to in act laws and taxes over lands and people that had no say because of their lower population and how the electoral system worked. The north used the power of the federal system to tax any state as it sees fit.

In the South’s eyes, the north was the new king of England, taxing them into servitude. The real reason for war runs deep.

"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."

-Abraham Lincoln

Did you know, Four border states, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland, remained in the union during the war but still allowed slavery. Missouri voted to leave the union but union troops stormed the state capital and installed a pro union government to insure they remained with the union. YES, some Union states owned and had the right to own slaves when the civil war broke out. It was only by executive order of the Emancipation Proclamation and after the 13th amendment was passed, did the union states finally freed there slaves.

If the war was about slaves then why didn’t Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland not join the south? Even New Jersey had the right to slaves! There are even records of the union army conducting slave auctions in Kentucky during the war! So if the civil war was about slaves, what gives, why didn’t those northern slave states join with the south?

My family has a collection of history books on all subjects from 1870's to the 1920's. These books are written by those there in the flesh. I’ll take firsthand accounts over 150 years of progressive telephone.

I may be wrong but i thought it was common knowledge that the civil war had only a minor piece of it being about slavery, I understand that, slavery is by far the most glorified part of the story but in reality it was not the biggest story of the day.


But if i understand what you are getting at it is just that, that slavery was only a small component to why the civil war was started am i correct in assuming this?


Thank you and good day/night depending on your location in this universe.

I try to inform people of this information whenever the opportunity presents it's self. But no one ever wants to hear it.

And try telling people the first legal slave owner in the US was an African American, ha. Anthony Johnson

Or even try to explain to soldiers who started giving out ribbons and medals to the troops and why they did so.

If we can't trust the history taught to us just from the last 200 or so years, how can we be expected to believe any of the rest of it is accurate?

reply to post by crimsongod21


Yes your right, slavery played a small part in the war and what was common knowledge is not so much common anymore.

reply to post by crimsongod21

I may be wrong but i thought it was common knowledge that the civil war had only a minor piece of it being about slavery, I understand that, slavery is by far the most glorified part of the story but in reality it was not the biggest story of the day.

I'd say that people finally realizing that white and black are just colors is a pretty sizable story, considering it took a war to wake them up.

It's a tale of triumph over stupidity. From today's perspective, that's a hell of an accomplishment.

The main reason for the civil war, as any good historian knows, is unfair rules and taxation placed upon the southern states...

reply to post by MentorsRiddle


The main reason for the civil war, as any good historian knows, is unfair rules and taxation placed upon the southern states...



Now 99% of americans are suffering under unfair rules and taxation not just the southern states. .

reply to post by AfterInfinity


It took many many more years before people started to perk up to the idea that people skin color has no effect on who they are, as of today many people still base judgment of there peers on skin color.

With that being said you are correct the abolishing of slavery was a grand thing, as you can see by all the movies, stories and what not that are now re-"telling" the story.

But in reality the abolishing of slavery was done more to hurt the south then it was to help the black man. In the north you had factories that were worked by white men women and children in the south there farms were mostly worked by slaves and there economy was dependent on said farms.... so when we took there slaves away there economy was decimated helping to turn the tides of war.

reply to post by camaro68ss


I think most major historians would agree with you that the civil war was not primarily about slavery. But this does not mean that the Confederates were any more in the right for becoming separatists.

The system of government that was created less than 100 years before the war, allowed congress to levy taxes. So the argument that the taxation was unconstitutional in invalid. Instead of trying to find a political solution to preserve the union, they instead decided to break it. Jefferson would have been shocked to see Virginia pull out of the union he helped create.

My family has a collection of history books on all subjects from 1870's to the 1920's. These books are written by those there in the flesh. I’ll take firsthand accounts over 150 years of progressive telephone.

I'm sorry but to argue that "progressives" have been in control over the country and its interpretation of history for 150 years is intellectually dishonest to say the least, and a first hand account is not always accurate as bias can still be injected.

The North was also missing something else - deepwater ports. The South had the majority of them and would have held a near monopoly on imports and exports charging hefty tariffs Northern Industrialist didn't want to pay.
Cleburne along with Forrest are both heroes of mine - people of great character and ability who have been maligned or forgotten by those who wrote the history books. Had they fought for the North they would celebrated as much as Grant or Sherman.

Some will never concede there was any other issue to the war besides slavery.
Facts matter little to their agendas.

They forget that blacks were so welcome up North a riot was started that burned down a black section of NYC in July 1863 killing over 100 people including women and children. They were actually race riots but were called the "draft riots".
By the numbers it was still a minority of Northerners who were for abolition. Lincoln used the emancipation proclamation as a tool to tie up Confederate forces to watch for rebellions and escapees. He also gladly employed freed slaves in the Union army, freeing up white men to serve on the front lines. Blacks did serve with distinction in combat though in many more places than the movies would have one believe.

This is a hard topic to discuss with the average Joe. People refuse to READ and RESEARCH anything these days. They want it handed to them on a silver platter(Something I was accused of recently. If they only knew). And god forbid you should recommend the library in addition to the internet. No matter what you tell some folks, all they can remember was that it was fought to free the slaves. That's it.

So here, let me set you straight camaro. The Civil War was fought partially, because vampires, who fought with the south btw, wanted slaves as a continuous and convenient food source. And ol Abe (the vampire hunter) wasn't having any of it. All the rest is secondary.



I realize your being serious with this thread. So am I...

reply to post by Klassified


hey, it was in the movies so it must be true right???

I always thought that part of the reason the slaves were freed was the need to fill the Northern industrial factories, which came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution, with laborers. As slaves escaped the South into the North that's were many of them ended up.

Do you know the context of these quotes, and why they directly contradict what he says in other quotes? Was he a flip flopper, appealing to the masses? Or as mentioned in this thread, was he using it to deprive the south of slaves (to make them dependent & not revolt?)

You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160. (Stephens was the future Confederate vice-president.)

Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.

Upon further reading I notice that most of his "anti-negro" speech was earlier, when he was trying to get elected for senate (the following quote and one of the first quotes in the thread), and then just a couple years later (right before and after the war) the quotes would make you think he's completely for equal rights & citizenship. He was definitely a good politician.

Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro-citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. [Applause.] He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. [Renewed applause.]

I will never understand why people keep fighting this battle: It doesn't matter anymore. Right or wrong, the civil war is over, that battle is done, stick a fork in it, roll the fat lady out, whatever you want to say about it. What the war was fought over changes nothing.

reply to post by antonia


I believe the point Antonia is that much history these days is romanticized and the truth fades quietly into oblivion.

I posted this in the other thread that sparked Camaro to make this thread...

"Those that do not know history are destined to repeat it" Edmund Burke - (1729 -1797)
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana (1863 - 1952)

History...good bad or indifferent needs to be remembered for what it actually was. While it is often true that the victor gets to write the history...the bare bone facts needs to always be remembered less we venture blindly into places that should be well behind us.

reply to post by antonia


The causes they fought for are central to what is the problem with government today. The truth should always be important regardless of how long ago it was.
On the other hand the Civil War cost more American lives than all our other wars combined.
These were our ancestors and it's important to know who they were and why they sacrificed everything they had for freedom.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


That may be all well and good, but you are here. No civil war "truth" is going to change the way things are today. You might also want to consider that history itself is subject to one's perception of their world therefore there can be no objective "truth" regarding motivations. You can certainly be objective about times, places and actors, but as for their motives? Only they could know and they are dead.

reply to post by antonia


They wrote about it and that is what so many historians inexcusably forget to include. Had you ever read the OP's quote by Patrick Cleburne? Had you even heard of him or his proposal to form black units to fight for the Confederacy?

My guess would be no, such things are never included in educational curriculum, even in colleges. One must research for oneself before you even find such quotes or personages.

The South will rise again.

And I relate to how you feel. Its like finding out Santa isnt real when you realize that 'history' is nothing more than propaganda and nonsense.