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

[Biff_Poindexter]

You've got it in your pointed little head it was over slavery and nothing is going to change your mind.

Attention whore

So when Texas wrote this in their declaration to succeed -- they were just kidding about the slavery part?

"in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; 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...."

Keep on defending those Democrats tho

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

The logic of pointing to a single speech as if it alone is all the proof necessary to prove an argument never ceases to astound.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Well, let's be precise, when you say "Civil War" are you referring to the war itself or to southern secession? The two are linked, obviously, but they each have different causes.

What was the difference?

Well the first wave of secession was obviously primarily related to fears about slavery, but the second wave after Fort Sumter was due to Lincoln's policies in response to Fort Sumter. Then the Civil War itself was based on Lincoln's desire to force the southern states to remain in the Union, and as he himself favored an amendment explicitly enshrining slavery as a constitutional right it would be incorrect to say that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

This is wrong. The issue was expansion of slavery into the territories and Lincoln didn't favor an amendment for slavery forever, at worse he would accept it to keep the peace, but he would not allow it to spread to Kansas, or to us taking in Cuba as a slave state.

There Was Plenty of Territory for Another Missouri Compromise

The slaveowners could have had the Caribbean islands, which would have given them enough states to balance the sweatshoppers' North and West. President Monroe wanted to do that, President Tyler later wanted to admit slaveholding Texas, but both were blocked by the Northern plutocrats, who always sought to have a monopoly on wealth. the Congress, and the electoral college.

The reason the Northern ruling class didn't want this deal, which on the surface would have benefited both sides, was that they feared Western expansion would give their trapped plebeians an outlet to escape to and even get rich after they got there.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

The Civil War was over a state's right to secede.

The reason they seceded was slavery. or the fear U.S. expansion would put slave states in the minority.

But, make no mistake. The war was about seceding. Read Lincoln's inaugural address.

 

[francoHFW]

You're denying democrats left the Union rather than free their slaves?

Once again -- was the cause of the Civil War slavery or not?

Most of today's democrats have no problem admitting it was over slavery -- even tho it was the democrats of the 1800's who wanted slavery..

Why do conservatives have such a hard time accepting it tho? Its almost like they are ashamed to admit it -- is it because they know the democrats of then were the conservatives? Does that give you the sads?

Is English not your first language? You posted here under other accounts, why are you having such a hard time all of a sudden

Keep the deflection going -- your affinity for white supremacy is loud and clear

democrats left the Union rather than free their slaves

Southern propagandists said that but actually Lincoln had no intention of doing any such thing... The old conservative slippery slope argument for the Chumps again...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

I just watched a lot of that Civil War series that was put out by the guy on Fox News. And it was Lincoln who made the war about slavery. Or to be more specific it was Lincoln who made the war about emancipation. He was losing the war until he gave Whites in Blue a reason to fight the Confederates. Northerners didn't care about successionists or worry about them separating destroying America. They fought it because Men were created Equal, even men who didn't look like them. Blacks are free because 300,000 whites died to free them.

However, there are those who fought on the Confederate side who did so because they were loyal to their state governments and not their Federal government. They didn't want the Federal government telling their state what to do.

This is nonsense. If anything, the Emancipation Proclamation caused northern soldiers to abandon their post more than it inspired them to some noble cause.

New York City draft riots - Wikipedia

So who were those people that beat Lee at Gettysburg then?? Come on

Either I'm dense or you're becoming more insensible with every post. What are you talking about?

 

[BlackSand]

Would you care to make any further incorrect and unsubstantiated allegations to satisfy your insecurities?

Yes, thanks...

No problem ... Give us a heads up when you make it to this century ...
We'll be here ... But we aren't waiting for you.

.​

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

]
So you definitely wanted a pat on the back rather than actually discussing the topic. Got it.

Discuss why Alabama wrote this in their declaration?

"Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans."

You won't tho -- but hey, keep on defending those Democrats

 

[cnm]

The logic of pointing to a single speech as if it alone is all the proof necessary to prove an argument never ceases to astound.

Well it does prove an argument, just not this one...

 

[BluesLegend]

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

Biff buddy...oh never mind

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Seeing how butthurt these racist democrat defenders are -- Now I wonder if they are mad that the South lost

I am thinking so

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, let's be precise, when you say "Civil War" are you referring to the war itself or to southern secession? The two are linked, obviously, but they each have different causes.

Here we go

So you started a discussion to have people pat you on the back, or to discuss a topic?

Once again -- it is a yes or no answer -- was the Civil War over slavery -- yes or no

The only people who try to parse words over this and that are usually people with an affinity to the confederate cause -- the old "lost cause" defense revisionist racists always try to use when they want to rehabilitate the fact that fighting to preserve slavery is nothing short of evil, plain and simple.

Why would anyone care about the Confederate cause? I was born in the north in the 20th century and I have no romantic illusions about the Confederacy, but neither do I have any about Lincoln or the Union. You mocked me when I tried to narrow down your yes or no question so that I could answer it in an intelligent manner. Was the Civil War itself over slavery? No, and Lincoln admitted as much himself. Was southern secession primarily about slavery? Well, yes, for the states of the deep south it certainly was. Georgia, Mississippi, and so on. Virginia? No.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Well, let's be precise, when you say "Civil War" are you referring to the war itself or to southern secession? The two are linked, obviously, but they each have different causes.

I don't think they had different causes, they seceded because they wanted to control their own economy, and slavery was a part of their economy, although not all slave states seceded.

Although I guess an argument could be made that the right to secede was invoked, the reasons for it were tied to slavery.

That's essentially what I just said. The deep south seceded primarily over slavery. After Fort Sumter states like Virginia seceded due to Lincoln's response. But that's different from why the Civil War was fought.

But then slave states like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri didn't secede, so it might be partially geographical and strategic.

The questions are, what if states would have tried seceding at another time in history over something else? Obviously the Civil War set some precedents.

Well Maryland was under martial law by Lincoln so it's probable they would have seceded. As for other times in history, the New England states threatened to secede in 1814 but ultimately did not. And of course the south was going to secede over the nullification crisis while Jackson was president, but they got a reduction in tariffs and didn't.

A group of northers threatened secession, not the north, and South Carolina in 1832 feared Jackson would drench the state in blood if they broke up the union

Rub-a-Dub-Tubman

Old Hickory is being replaced on the twenty by a coyote for gangbangers.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Biff buddy...oh never mind

I see you won't take the bait to walk in your truth -- good on you..

I'll catch you on the "Welfare" post -- that usually brings the racism right out of whitey

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You've got it in your pointed little head it was over slavery and nothing is going to change your mind.

Attention whore

So when Texas wrote this in their declaration to succeed -- they were just kidding about the slavery part?

"in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; 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...."

Keep on defending those Democrats tho

Here you're conflating the reasons for the Civil War with the reasons some southern states chose to secede. These are two separate, if linked, events with different causes.

 

[cnm]

No problem ... Give us a heads up when you make it to this century ...

Oh. You should have said.

Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com​

 

[MarcATL]

Here is how a sane adult who read more than 2 history books answers that question

Was the Civil War over slavery? Yes!

This is how a person with unresolved racism and pro-white supremacist views answers that question

Was the Civil War over slavery? No!!! and democrats started it!! but not over slavery!! but Democrats want to bring back slavery -- but not back then, because it wasn't over slavery!! Obama is a muslim!!

NAILED IT!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

]
So you definitely wanted a pat on the back rather than actually discussing the topic. Got it.

Discuss why Alabama wrote this in their declaration?

"Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans."

You won't tho -- but hey, keep on defending those Democrats

You've clearly read nothing I've said in this thread. The deep south chose to secede primarily over slavery. I haven't said anything different.

 

[BlackSand]

Why would anyone care about the Confederate cause? I was born in the north in the 20th century and I have no romantic illusions about the Confederacy, but neither do I have any about Lincoln or the Union. You mocked me when I tried to narrow down your yes or no question so that I could answer it in an intelligent manner. Was the Civil War itself over slavery? No, and Lincoln admitted as much himself. Was southern secession primarily about slavery? Well, yes, for the states of the deep south it certainly was. Georgia, Mississippi, and so on. Virginia? No.

Silly rabbit ... Whatever gave you the impression these nit-wits are interested in an intelligent conversation ...

.​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The logic of pointing to a single speech as if it alone is all the proof necessary to prove an argument never ceases to astound.

Lincoln was commander-in-chief. He was the guy responsible for prosecuting the war on the south. If not his speech, what other evidence is there?

The War was over independence of states and their freedom to separate from the union.