Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

The CW was fought over slavery, nothing else that, in it's aftermath, revisionist historians tried to say otherwise.

Not true.

The book Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson has the best treatment of the causes of the Civil War I've ever read. I recommend it.

In a letter to abolitionist Horace Greeley in 1862, Lincoln wrote," 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Of course, abolition became one of the war aims of the North after the Emancipation Proclamation. But, at the time, the EP was for the purpose of harming the South's war effort, and to bolster Union ranks with black soldiers. The EP freed the slaves in the states that Lincoln had no control over and kept slavery in the slave states that did not join the Confederacy.

The statement, "...the Civil War was fought over slavery, nothing else..." is just not accurate, but it does reflect the cheapening of history on college campuses today.

[CGVT]

The CW was fought over slavery, nothing else that, in it's aftermath, revisionist historians tried to say otherwise.

This is a fact. All a person has to do is read the secession documents from each state to know exactly why they seceded.

The people that are still fighting that war like to claim it was over State's Rights. They are correct, they just can't admit that the right to own slaves was the right that trumped all others

[CGVT]

Surprise, surprise. Geezer takes the "it wasn't slavery" position

Look at why the states seceded.

It's all there in black and white, well before the "I am only here to save the Union" talk of Lincoln.

[CGVT]

Start with that bastion of righteousness, Mississippi.

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

[froot loops]

It was clearly about slavery. Bleeding Kansas was about slavery, Harpers Ferry was about slavery, the compromise of 1850 was about slavery. Read the Declarations of secession, nearly all of them talk about preserving slavery.

The alleged cheapening of education has nothing to do with it. Read tbose declarations. In Mississippi the second sentence reads as follows, "Our position. Is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world."

The Lost Causers always bring up that quote by Lincoln as the sole evidence. Lincoln was trying to win the war. it is as if the other stuff hadn't happened. That stuff did happen. Maybe more accurately, they should say secession happened because of slavery.

[CGVT]

Exactly.

[crashcourse]

lincolns problem was the federal constitution supported slavery and he supported the constitution--throw in the fact of even he supported emancipation for military reasons he did not support voting rights interracial relationships or any "negro equality"

he rode the fence until succession occurred then used abolitionishism and emancipation as a weapon

civil war might have bee triggered by slavery but 95% of confederate soldiers didn't have slaves and didn't fight the war to protect plantation owners. they fought because they didn't want northerners and the feds telling them what to do including about slavery--slavery was just the main issue northerners were trying to change

[iam416]

It was obviously about slavery. The single best piece of evidence is the proposed Crittenden amendment. There are ample other contemporaneous statements from southern leaders.

It was, to a lesser degree, about power. It was clear that the North would gain eventual power over the South, but it was power measured in "free or slave" states.

Secession was the decision of the politically powerful and the politically powerful made the decision based on slavery. The poor folks then fought for their state loyalties. But when you're looking at why the South committed treason you look at the decision-makers, not the private from Threetoe, Georgia.

Lincoln's quote is irrelevant in that (a) it's after the fact of secession; and (b) he wasn't making the decision to secede. The reason for the decision to secede was clear. At that point, Lincoln's hand was forced. Sure, if he could have preserved the union by passing an amendment anointing Santa Claus Senator Pro Tem, he would have. But the South left him once choice and they did so in the name of slavery.

And then the treasonous fucks were entirely and thoroughly conquered.

[entropy]

I think it is unreasonable to say the main reason for the civil war wasn't over slavery. I think it is also unreasonable to say it was the only reason.

now.. we could argue if the other reasons were marketing power the powers that be in the south. I could entertain that.. "way of life".. "being told what to do".. etc.. was that PR over slavery or more than slavery? I think for some more.. but that would be the debate, imo.

[iam416]

In the legal world there is but-for causation and proximate causation. The former is anything that contributes to the event. I got out of bed this morning and ended up getting hit by a car. So, but for getting out of bed this morning I wouldn't have been hit by the car. That, however, is not "legal" causation. The legal or proximate causation is the reckless driving of the person who hit me with the car.

There is only only proximate cause for the War to Suppress Southern Treason.

[CGVT]

It was obviously about slavery. The single best piece of evidence is the proposed Crittenden amendment. There are ample other contemporaneous statements from southern leaders.

It was, to a lesser degree, about power. It was clear that the North would gain eventual power over the South, but it was power measured in "free or slave" states.

Secession was the decision of the politically powerful and the politically powerful made the decision based on slavery. The poor folks then fought for their state loyalties. But when you're looking at why the South committed treason you look at the decision-makers, not the private from Threetoe, Georgia.

Lincoln's quote is irrelevant in that (a) it's after the fact of secession; and (b) he wasn't making the decision to secede. The reason for the decision to secede was clear. At that point, Lincoln's hand was forced. Sure, if he could have preserved the union by passing an amendment anointing Santa Claus Senator Pro Tem, he would have. But the South left him once choice and they did so in the name of slavery.

And then the treasonous fucks were entirely and thoroughly conquered.

Yep

[froot loops]

You can go over the reasons and evidence, but I want to know how Andy Jackson or DJT was going to sort out a deal to stop it. The maxim that dictates you stop digging while in a hole still applies.

[entropy]

trump would have invented the cotton gin years earlier..

[iam416]

Say what you will about Andy, but his handling of the Nullification Crisis (also "not about slavery") was well-done. States simply can't choose to ignore federal law. I sort of wish we had ol' Andy in office to deal with "sanctuary cities" and such. Heh.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Yes, maybe a better take, several Southern States that ultimately formed the core of the Confederacy seceded when Lincoln was elected President on a Republican Platform that included a pledge to keep slavery out of the territories. He assumed the Presidency, March 4th 1861. The Lincoln administration would not recognize the Confederacy ..... from there the steps to war are interesting and recapped at this web page.

http://www.civilwar.org/150th-anniversary/this-day-in-the-civil-war.html

I'm not a Civil War history buff but I find this exercise illuminating. I also found this:

While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states .......

I'd offer that, aside from a few curious takes on history, most historians would argue that the Civil was unquestionably fought over slavery, that issue having been kicked around since 1776.

Back to the issue of Trump's love fest with Andrew Jackson, he is clearly misinformed about both the context of the period leading up to Fort Sumter and the historical beginning of the CW and his view that Jackson could have somehow averted the Civil war because he was "an amazing leader." By 1861 a CW was a foregone conclusion.