Most Conservatives Still Believe The Civil War Wasn't Over Slavery

[Biff_Poindexter]

Oh yea...join me next week when I make conservatives resist the urge to deny the Holocaust happened or...if it did happen, it wasn't as bad as was claimed..or so what, George Soros was a Nazi

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I said that Virginia didn't secede over slavery, which is true. They seceded because they didn't like Lincoln's unconstitutional policies in response to Fort Sumter. Nobody is saying that Virginia was not a slave state, and, as I've said repeatedly, the deep south states obviously did secede over slavery. That has never been in question.

pssssttt....The Civil War was over slavery..

but trust me, it turned out to be ok in the long run -- it was the Democrats fault

Since you love quotes so much, find for us the quote from Abraham Lincoln saying that he was fighting the Civil War to free the slaves. This would have to be a quote from before the Emancipation Proclamation, obviously.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."

That proves that Lincoln was personally anti-slavery, but also proves that he was not an abolitionist.

 

[miketx]

To say that there would have been no war if there had been no slavery does not mean the war was fought over slavery. The federal government and South Carolina nearly came to blows over the tariff in 1833.

They definitely didn't succeed now did they?

Similarly, the direct cause of the Deep South's secession was Abraham Lincoln's election. The indirect cause was slavery.

The cause of the deep south's secession was them wanting to keep slaves -- they did not bite their tongue when they spoke about it or wrote about it.

It never fails that the only people trying to argue every other cause imaginable for Civil War other than slavery are conservatives -- but conservatives are the main ones who say "the democrats wanted slavery" -- yes that is true --so why keep making excuses for them? Unless.....

Keep lying lib, it's what you do. States rights was the main cause.

The state right to have slavery to be precise LOL

I'm sure that was one of them.

 

[imawhosure]

I see a lot of people throwing Lincoln under the bus with the "Lincoln didn't give a shit about slaves"

I'll make sure to remember that when Republicans are forced to defend their poor track record on Civil rights by saying "but but but we are the party of Lincoln"

As long as you remember, your the party of the KKK-)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh yea...join me next week when I make conservatives resist the urge to deny the Holocaust happened or...if it did happen, it wasn't as bad as was claimed..or so what, George Soros was a Nazi

"Conservatives" are known to be hypocrites, just like most others.

All I can give you is the libertarian perspective.

The holocaust happened. It was bad. Millions were killed for no other reason than their religions/race. Irrelevant to this discussion.

George Soros actually helped the Nazis. You didn't know that?

This worthless troll attempted failed because the OP lacks the ability to look at issues objectively with a reasonable degree of logic.

 

[cnm]

As long as you remember, your the party of the KKK-)

Which praises Trump.

 

[Correll]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

There is no reason for a minor difference of opinion over an historical controversy from over a century ago, to "divide" this nation.

 

[BluesLegend]

I see why this thread isn't in current events.

 

[kaz]

Lincoln wanted blacks to go back to Africa. The vast majority of Northerners considered blacks inferior. The motto of the north was "Save the union" and as Bootney accurately pointed out the whole slavery thing came up 2 years into the war.

No amount of facts are going to phase you, are they?

Cool...so basically your point is that Lincoln didn't give a fuck about slaves either? got it.

Correct. Again, he offered to enshrine slavery in the Constitution to stop the war. That's caring about the slaves?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Lincoln wanted blacks to go back to Africa. The vast majority of Northerners considered blacks inferior. The motto of the north was "Save the union" and as Bootney accurately pointed out the whole slavery thing came up 2 years into the war.

No amount of facts are going to phase you, are they?

Cool...so basically your point is that Lincoln didn't give a fuck about slaves either? got it.

Correct. Again, he offered to enshrine slavery in the Constitution to stop the war. That's caring about the slaves?

Lincoln wanted to protect his power structure. He wanted to be president of all the states. He felt robbed when states left. He was willing to sacrifice the lives of a million people to make sure he maintained his power--just like any other person with power would do.

It is really that simple.

 

[Theowl32]

Do you know all leftwingers dont care about these facts in regards to SLAVERY AND THE CIVIL WAR?

One, they don't care that the Trans Sahara Slave Trade was going on for close to 700 years before the Europeans got involved (Trans Atlantic slave Trade.) Which means virtually every slave brought to America were already in fact slaves. Europeans did not "kidnap" blacks with nets.

Two, there were many black slave owners and thousands of blacks of fought for the confederacy.




Do you the left also dont care Native American also owned slaves and also fought for the confederacy?

They also don't believe a republican never owned a slave.

The left, hate facts.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Civil War still divides Americans

So after 150 years, the majority of conservatives still believe the Civil War wasn't over slavery?

Why is this? Why do they believe the "States Rights" claim is sufficient enough to shield them from the fact that -- those states rights were those states preserving the right to maintain slavery -- so either way you slice it, the civil war was over slavery --


This is why whenever I see a conservative twisting themselves into pretzels to claim otherwise --- it makes their subsequent claims of not being racist look foolish.


Next time conservatives want to pretend that the Civil War wasn't over slavery -- they better travel back in time and tell all of those southern states to stop telling everyone it was over slavery

It wasn't over slavery.

Slavery brought the issue to a head.

 

[imawhosure]

As long as you remember, your the party of the KKK-)

Which praises Trump.

Thought we were talking about the civil war, Lincoln, and how far back the Democrats were RACISTS. What Trump has to do with that, I dunno.

I do know, I never owned a slave, and I know nobody who ever was a slave, that's all that matters to me. Sooooooooo, obviously, this thread was created to try and push more identity polics, and American division.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Lincoln wanted blacks to go back to Africa. The vast majority of Northerners considered blacks inferior. The motto of the north was "Save the union" and as Bootney accurately pointed out the whole slavery thing came up 2 years into the war.

No amount of facts are going to phase you, are they?

Cool...so basically your point is that Lincoln didn't give a fuck about slaves either? got it.

Correct. Again, he offered to enshrine slavery in the Constitution to stop the war. That's caring about the slaves?

Lincoln wanted to protect his power structure. He wanted to be president of all the states. He felt robbed when states left. He was willing to sacrifice the lives of a million people to make sure he maintained his power--just like any other person with power would do.

It is really that simple.

That, and the big tough north was afraid the south would ally with some strong European power and kick their asses.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Thought we were talking about the civil war, Lincoln, and how far back the Democrats were RACISTS. What Trump has to do with that, I dunno.

I do know, I never owned a slave, and I know nobody who ever was a slave, that's all that matters to me. Sooooooooo, obviously, this thread was created to try and push more identity polics, and American division.

and to troll

The result is that the OP looks like a simpleton.

win/win -- I guess.

 

[kaz]

You realize it would have taken 3/4 of the States to undo a Constitutional Amendment, right?

Which is what the non-slave states would have eventually had if limited to the then-existing slave states. An amendment would have eventually come.

That's why the slave fuckers didn't want it. Just because they were evil, white-supremacists assholes does not mean they lacked foresight.

Just being fair.

Would have taken quite an elaborate ruse to pull it off since the States would have to amend the Constitution for slavery, grow the number of States to be able to get rid of it, then convince the States that enacted slavery to fight a war to fight a war to end it.

I think by that point they genuinely didn't want to be part of the United States

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That, and the big tough north was afraid the south would ally with some strong European power and kick their asses.

Which was more a power struggle than anything remotely resembling a human rights struggle.

The hypocrisy is nauseating.

 

[Imissbush]

Yes, and they lost. They failed. Losers don't write the history for a reason

So, I am right?

No

 

[Imissbush]

Man, I knew our education system was in the toilet. We have pseudocon tards who think Nazis are left wing, and that the civil war wasn't about slavery.

Let's take a look at those states who filed their reasons for secession, shall we? When we do, we find that in four declarations, slavery is mentioned no less than 82 times!!!

They literally could not write three sentences without mentioning slavery at least once.

Declaration of Causes of Secession

We'll start with Georgia:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact.

This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States.

The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.

We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end.

Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787.

They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves).

In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri.

The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time.

That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists.

Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.

The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty.

Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union.

These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

On to Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

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 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 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.

Now South Carolina:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.

The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

The great state of Texas:

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

You're equating the reasons for secession of particular states with the reasons behind the Civil War. These are two separate events. Perhaps it's you the government schools failed.

But the south was fighting to secede, so they were fighting for secession. They seceded over slavery. What don't you get?