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.
Here you go. this is from a conservative organization that puts out brilliant videos on all kinds of topics.
This one is about the cause of the Civil War. The cause was slavery. period. there is no question. that is not a revisionist position. Every single Session Document stated clearly the individual states succeeded over slavery. period.
I will admit that perhaps I was a little sneaky in asking the question without offering my own beliefs at the outset, but since there have been so many people on this board insisting that the war was NOT about slavery, I was curious to see what other explanations for its occurrence they had to offer. I have yet to see any that are remotely convincing, and the video addresses the usual excuses very succinctly.
Yes, it's not likely that a region of the country that had just fought a war because they didn't feel like they had any representation in that government wouldn't have issues with a federal government where they had just been shown they were irrelevant by the election of a President.
Let's fight a war, and then a few decades later be back in the exact same position!
Yes, it's not likely that a region of the country that had just fought a war because they didn't feel like they had any representation in that government wouldn't have issues with a federal government where they had just been shown they were irrelevant by the election of a President.
Let's fight a war, and then a few decades later be back in the exact same position!
That first sentence...quite a complex structure to it.
It was about secession. Preserving the Union at all costs. Slavery was the point of contention.
Southern states to Lincoln: "We want to secede from the union because"
That's all they get out before Lincoln interrupts with, "You can't".
BINGO! Surprised so many simply gloss over secession as the cause of the Civil War.
You can argue issue of Slavery caused the South to secede but it was that act of secession and Lincoln's refusal to allow the southern states to go quietly that caused the Civil War... Slaves were nothing more than contraband to the North..
Its interesting to note that there were several commentaries by a number of Founding Fathers (don't have time to find them but you can find them on your one) that opined that the nation was bound for civil war because of slavery.
it was the growing shadow over the nation from its founding. The Founding Fathers were forced to kick that can down the road in order to create the union and defeat the British. They knew it was coming.
That first sentence...quite a complex structure to it.
Might you rephrase it more simply for us?
Of course.
The South fought alongside the North to have a government in which they had a voice.
Some eighty years later, they were facing the prospect that the federal government of the United States would make the South's voice irrelevant. That they would again have a government that would make decisions for them without their input.
Democracies, even representative republic democracies, favor urban regions over rural regions.
The South, prior to the Civil War, was providing the bulk of the funding for the federal government. And the tensions over how they were doing this, through tariffs, were very high.
Would you like to pay for a government where your voice doesn't matter? That was what the Revolutionary War was about. Not paying for a government where your voice doesn't matter.
Without slavery, the South would have felt no need to secede. The North would not have messed with their economy.
Slavery was THE cause of the Civil War, and I'll go so far as to say it was exclusively a moral issue. After all, the South was doing gangbusters economically at the time economically. Why mess with the gravy train if not for moral reasons?
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
The North was already messing with their economy. What do you think the tariffs did?
And your moral issue didn't bother the North all that much. It didn't bother them that they were the slave traffickers and profited from the slave trade. It didn't bother them to collateralize slaves. They loaned money to plantation owners using slaves as collateral. They offered plantation owners insurance policies for slaves. The North played a huge role in creating a dependence in the South on slavery. And they stood to gain if slavery was outlawed, because they could call in those loans, and because the insurance policies were rendered worthless if the government changed the laws.
The South fought alongside the North to have a government in which they had a voice.
Some eighty years later, they were facing the prospect that the federal government of the United States would make the South's voice irrelevant. That they would again have a government that would make decisions for them without their input.
Democracies, even representative republic democracies, favor urban regions over rural regions.
The South, prior to the Civil War, was providing the bulk of the funding for the federal government. And the tensions over how they were doing this, through tariffs, were very high.
Would you like to pay for a government where your voice doesn't matter? That was what the Revolutionary War was about. Not paying for a government where your voice doesn't matter.
Thank you for the clarification.
First, there really wasn't a 'south' or a 'north' when the American Revolution was fought. There were instead 13 different states. South Carolina wasn't North Carolina wasn't Georgia, wasn't Virginia, much like Pennsylvania wasn't New York, wasn't Massachusetts. Now Connecticut and Massachusetts -- yes, those two were similar, but that's about it.
Second, I'd like to point out that I already several times this week debunked the myth that the South was paying for the federal government. If anything, the North was paying the bulk of federal taxes. I'll provide the information, if you like, but the information is readily available and backed by the public record, if one simply seeks it out.
As for the South's voice becoming 'irrelevant'...the South would still have Congressmen and Senators, would they not? And a chance every four years to run a Southern candidate for the presidency? And wasn't the supreme court equally filled with both Southerners as well as Northerners, even though the Southern part of the United States was markedly less than half of the total population?
The worst that could have happened would have been the same fate for New England, when the Federalists fell from national power in 1800. Yet, somehow, the people of New England managed to persevere.
First, there really wasn't a 'south' or a 'north' when the American Revolution was fought. There were instead 13 different states. South Carolina wasn't North Carolina wasn't Georgia, wasn't Virginia, much like Pennsylvania wasn't New York, wasn't Massachusetts. Now Connecticut and Massachusetts -- yes, those two were similar, but that's about it.
Second, I'd like to point out that I already several times this week debunked the myth that the South was paying for the federal government. If anything, the North was paying the bulk of federal taxes. I'll provide the information, if you like, but the information is readily available and backed by the public record, if one simply seeks it out.
As for the South's voice becoming 'irrelevant'...the South would still have Congressmen and Senators, would they not? And a chance every four years to run a Southern candidate for the presidency? And wasn't the supreme court equally filled with both Southerners as well as Northerners, even though the Southern part of the United States was markedly less than half of the total population?
The worst that could have happened would have been the same fate for New England, when the Federalists fell from national power in 1800. Yet, somehow, the people of New England managed to persevere.
Oh, please.
There were thirteen colonies when the Revolutionary War was fought, and those thirteen colonies could be divided into North or South, quite easily. Your assertion otherwise is nonsense.
Second, tariffs were a bone of contention between the Northern states and the Southern states, and there is ample historical record to prove this.
Third, the South would still have Congressmen and Senators, but if they are outnumbered, then they serve primarily as spectators. If the North could install a President without any input from the South, in the system that was in place in 1860, they obviously had the numbers to control the legislature as well. And maybe you missed it, but the judicial appointments are sourced from the executive branch.
The South's voice was becoming irrelevant. And the election of Lincoln made that clear.
It's hard to say. Certainly slavery caused a great deal of division among the States. But the real motivation for the civil war was to return the country to a Confederacy, it's original form of government.
Nah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redd Jedd
All other reasons for the south seceding go back to wanting to keep slaves. All of them.
It really is that simple. Slavery was the ONLY issue.
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.
