8
7

[–] Joe_McCarthy 8 points 7 points (+15|-8) ago 

The Civil War was complicated and was about a number of things. To say slavery was no factor though is laughable. It's rebel revisionist bull hockey designed by cuck Southerners uncomfortable with their past.

0
8

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

The primary consideration was State's Rights, but mainly as they related to slavery and the economic position it would put the South in if it were outlawed. Multiple states referenced slavery in their secession debates and/or documents. Slavery was a big straw on that camel's back.

Funny thing is that the Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade and allowed states to outlaw slavery within their own boundaries at will. Interesting ideas for a country supposedly based completely on slavery.

0
2

[–] lipids 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Mentioning slavery at all is poisoning the well. The north wanted the south to continue to pay the loans they took out to buy slaves, essentially enslaving the slave owners. They weren't angels.

0
3

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Not only that but there was a tariff system that charged tariffs for manufactured items coming into the US but not raw materials. The South produced pretty much nothing but raw materials and therefore had to compete against every other country while the North produced few raw materials but lots of manufactured goods and was protected from competition. And those taxes were spent mainly in the North.

0
1

[–] Butler_crosley 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Most heritage groups accept that slavery was one of many factors but that it wasn't the only factor

0
0

[–] tcp 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Many people, including college graduates, will refuse to acknowledge the primary cause of the Civil War was almost certainly taxes / tariffs. http://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

Also, was the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, a revisionist? Before he died, he tried to address the incessant (even today) propaganda that the North had a noble reason for preventing self-governance when an entire state or group of states decided it didn't need a hostile federal government. (Arguably, only tyrants or warmongers would let such a disagreement devolve into war). He claimed that slavery was an incident, not the cause. He also blamed the North for being the ones primarily engaged with bringing slaves to the continent. http://www.marottaonmoney.com/jefferson-davis-posthumously-responds-to-our-readers-reactions/

It can only be said that the North fought to "preserve the union" not to end slavery. This hints at the North relying on unfair trade, unless you really want to argue that there is an overriding justification to go to war against states that want to self-govern. People want to ask why the South was the first to strike or needed to lash out at all. Instead, can we ask why the North presented itself as an enemy and an existential threat, instead of the partner it should have been if it wanted to exist as a mutually-beneficial union between states?

Albeit, in the articles of secession and elsewhere, slavery was injected as issue to rile people up. Liberals harp on factoids like that to show that people would fight for slavery. However, why were Southerners different? Would they go to war for reasons normal Americans wouldn't? Going back to colonial independence, you can't even say that the colonists formed strong ideas about liberty before the American Revolution because it was an ambiguous notion, and you can only use speak of any fervor they had in terms of how it related to their survival and future. The American Revolution was not fought over morality and neither was the American Civil War. It could be said that the North was ready to or already starting to undermine Southern institutions of which slavery was a necessary one, but which side does this statement indicate is more nefarious then?

Obviously, having non-PC views compared to 21st century thinking, doesn't invalidate a movement. This should go without stating, but there's a frenzy over the many cases where historical figures appear to be fighting for the wrong reasons since they held unto values they made sense for the situation and time. (Funnily enough, today, half of the American populace are, in an odd way, being named and shamed for their bigotry. They've shown the audacity to preserve conservative values instead of being led into a brave new world). When Southerners of the time claimed that they had a moderate / compassionate form of slavery, is that a ridiculous defense of slavery or simply truthful? Slavery was on the wane globally, and it was divisive even within regions. Once slavery is already in place, there are a myriad of justifications to keep in place for the time being. If it needed to be ended so badly, there didn't need be a decisive war. There needed to be a decisive plan, but was there ever one? It was a complicated social issue that would take time to resolve. In fact, we are still dealing with the ramifications of half-heartedly "resolving" the issue of blacks, who, as a people, still seem to be largely incompatible with white society.

From one more article: "Most Americans believe the U. S. “Civil War” was over slavery. They have to an enormous degree been miseducated. The means and timing of handling the slavery issue were at issue, although not in the overly simplified moral sense that lives in postwar and modern propaganda." http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html

Finally, for people that want to see the war as a rebellion against the government, they can rely on people believing there was nothing special about this civil war. However, this civil war reached the level of a war between opposing states, and people believe the proper name is the War Between The States. This means that everyone who wants to call some Confederate general a traitor to the United States is being a bit ridiculous. A man of the South didn't betray anyone because loyalty to your state was more important and entirely different from any allegiance or obligation you had to the federal government.

0
3

[–] Trigglypuff 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It was about privately owned central banks.

0
3

[–] Butler_crosley 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Stephens was considered one of the greatest minds during his time. After the war he regretted his slavery comments in the speech but stood by his other comments. He, like numerous other former Confederate leaders, supported integration after the war and promoted equality.

0
2

[–] Cheesebooger 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Exactly what it was about. Northern aggression. The queens army helped to make sure the north won. Russian Bolsheviks were also anchored in our bays at that time helping the north.

0
1

[–] Cantilever [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Really? I didn't know. Explains the norths endless supplies and men

0
2

[–] Whatnext 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

YES!!! Im related to him

0
1

[–] Calgacus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Don't doxx yourself.

0
1

[–] Sharkbait83 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

According to my History "Professor" it was all to do about the abolition of slavery.

0
0

[–] Cantilever [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

They lied to me too

0
1

[–] YouKnowItIKnowIt 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

repeal the 17th amendment, restore states rights to elect and remove their own senators to represent the states instead just a second house.

0
0

[–] Rainy-Day-Dream 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

it was about both, but it's important to note that before the war when he took office lincoln specifically said he wasn't going to do anything about slavery and that he didn't think it would be legal for him to do so. He also didn't bring up emancipation until several battles into the war

0
1

[–] vonHugenbuben 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think Lincoln freed the slaves in an attempt to cut off cotton production. You can't sell your crop if there is no one to get it out of the field.

0
2

[–] Rainy-Day-Dream 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

no imo he just needed to give the soldiers a moral imperative to motivate them to invade their own country and kill fellow americans. A "just cause" does wonders for troop morale.

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)