Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it reopened a can of worms that has been debated ad nauseam. There are dozens of threads already on this topic. You are not uncovering anything new and not proving any kind of new narrative. Your interpretation of these 'new' revelations simply deny that the south seceded because they feared the eventual end of slavery, and by doing so, they hastened its end by decades.
The usual suspects will be along to agree with your revisionist OP. If few people post to point out your lack of understanding and why you are wrong, it is because they are tired of doing so.
How arrogant.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
Usually these threads turn into South bashing and any alternative perspectives of the war get labeled as racist or "neo Confederate".
People don't like hearing the narrative they've been taught for generations may not be entirely accurate. It does not go over well.
It's not just the Civil War but all US History leaves out a few key details here and there that can change the entire perspective.
This is true.
I don't read these threads anymore because of what is written above. Instead of staying out of the thread, they have to state why the op has no right to bring this up again..........and the the op is stupid and racist for doing so.
You also have the losers pushing the idea that they weren't fighting for slavery
Even though all the seceding articles say that that's why they seceded
Treason remains treason. There is no right to treason (secede) because you don't like the President. True in Lincoln's time as much as Obama's and Trump's. End of discussion.
Secession isn't treason. States freely entering the union should have been allowed to freely leave the union.
If Lincoln gets the blame for starting the war then he said it was about slavery. He said the United States could not exist half slave and half free. There could not be one country with two separate economic systems. In the south humans were actually used as currency while in the north they were using money exclusively. If secession would have been allowed it would have begun the process of balkanization as every state or region would had seem to have reason enough to exist separatly.
Go read the Articles of Secession. The Confederacy was about maintaining slaves. I say this as someone who was born and raised in a former Confederate state.
Also, research "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" to see why so many people romanticize the Civil War.
You say you are from the North and were taught it was about slavery.
I am from the South and was taught it was about states' rights.
Then, I went to college. When I was working on my first Masters degree, I ventured off into a 2nd Masters in US History to the Reconstruction, and let me reassure you...
That "it was about slavery" explanation is pretty much enough for most people who aren't historians.
The Civil War would never have happened if the slaveholding states hadn't wanted to uphold the status quo (continue slavery) and the other states had not wanted to maintain the union.
So, in effect, it WAS about slavery.
ITA with the above and find it odd that a few of you are still arguing otherwise.
It is very strange and seems like willful ignorance to continue to argue that slavery wasn't the direct issue that caused the civil war.
It is also very interesting to me, as someone who is a descendant of slaves for some of you to say that slavery was just a "political issue." You negate the human experience of slaves and act like they are nothing to consider, just like those people in the south did. They were made political because they weren't considered humans. As was mentioned, slaves tens of thousands (some estimate hundreds of thousands, especially from the 1600s forward) of them took their lives into their own hands and escaped. Those figures don't include those who were found and murdered for trying to escape. Slavery was not just political. It was something that damaged both black and white residents of our country psychologically and was morally wrong then just as it is today.
Even if you are a historian, historians know and should acknowledge that slavery WAS the direct cause of the war. I don't understand why you all keep arguing otherwise. It really doesn't make any sense.
I'll also note that if fugitives running away wasn't an issue, then why did southern states directly reference that in their articles of secession. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was a huge issue for the south.
But overall, slavery was the direct cause of the war. It really is not debatable since all the things you all are talking about lead back to slavery. Again, very odd.
Ok, this has to be one of the most confusing threads ever lol.
Some people that have been arguing this entire thread that the Civil War was entirely caused by slavery are now saying that President Lincoln did not want to free the slaves.
That is an interesting thing to say because if you argue that the Civil War was entirely over slavery and President Lincoln did not want to free the slaves - why did the Southern states start seceding just one month after his election? Could there be other factors involved besides the slavery issue that the Southerners were concerned about?
Hopefully, people are starting to see that the question what caused the Civil War is a lot more complicated then just one word answers.
On the bold - they were paranoid and reactionary and didn't like Lincoln. He wasn't going to outlaw slavery. People today are still paranoid and reactionary about politics but they took it to a whole other level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Just a small amount of research would show you that you're wrong. Care to undertake it?
Why don't you show me that I'm wrong....
The north did not invade the south and tell them to get rid of their slaves. SC attacked first. They were ridiculously paranoid and out of their minds afraid their slaves would be taken away and they would be financially ruined. Nobody really liked black people back then and even a majority of northerners didn't want blacks in their states and they didn't want slaves running away to their states. Southern states believed a bunch of ridiculous propaganda and took stupid action that lead to their financial ruin and the decimation of their "country." Lincoln had done nothing to them.
The problem is you’re downplaying economics and overplaying slavery. Slavery is just the machine, but economics and politicis what people fight over. It could have been over any economic driver from the conflicting party. Slavery is only of interest through a perspective of a modern civil rights researcher, which itself was not of interest to the North at the time. The vast majority of students believe the war was humanitarian in nature because they get distracted by modern views of civil rights.
That’s like saying Europeans colonized Africa to end slavery in Africa. That may have been the result, but that was not their intention.
Honestly I think everybody is saying the same thing on this thread in different ways. Not sure what it is you think people aren’t admitting.
The bold is odd. Do you deny that the economy of the south was driven on slavery? That the value of slaves was the bulk of the wealth of the south? That limiting the amount of "slave states" being admitted to the USA would be detrimental to the south?
I didn't overplay anything. And I didn't even mention civil rights. What I stated above is the truth and you and others actually have said the same things in the course of the thread lol.
Economy was driven by slaves
Political issues were driven by the institution of slavery
States Rights was driven by issues relating to slavery (rights of northern states to enact laws/procedures for the return of fugitive slaves vs. rights of the south to go get their escaped slaves in northern states)
None of the above have anything to do with civil rights. I think you are acting like all of the above are not related to slavery when they are. Not sure if it was you but someone said "slavery was both a direct and indirect cause of the war" (which literally made me giggle loudly and someone looked at me)
How can something be both a direct and indirect cause of the war, yet it wasn't what the war was about lol? I think some of you are just kidding yourselves, maybe because you are sensitive about civil rights or racial issues or something. For me it is a simple thing. I agree slavery was the direct and indirect cause of the war BTW because slavery was the cause of the war - I just say it in a simpler way and don't try to step around the subject.
ETA: I agree most are saying it is about slavery. The issue I have is that it is funny that people are saying that, but then saying it was not when it was. It is funny to me. I also don't see what civil rights has to do with the civil war. The actual Civil Rights Movement started after the Civil War not during the war or before the war. So that has nothing to do with it. I am not some high school student who is naive and PC about civil rights issues BTW. I also am not someone who dances around a subject and act like "direct and indirect" causes are not THE cause of something. It is just funny to me that some do this.
You also have the losers pushing the idea that they weren't fighting for slavery
Even though all the seceding articles say that that's why they seceded
If by losers, you mean those that living in the south in the mid 19th century or even those that were actually fighting then i don't think so. There was probably less disagreements about the cause of the Civil War in 1866 than there is today.
Secession isn't treason. States freely entering the union should have been allowed to freely leave the union.
I think there is NO DOUBT that all the colonies/states certainly felt that way especially when they joined. If they didn't think they could freely leave, they would never have joined...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
