Was the Civil War fought over slavery?

[rightwinger]

There was a lot of money to be made in cotton and the slave rapers did not want to have to share any of it with the labor

 

[Syriusly]

Abraham Lincoln tried to deport slaves to British colonies Daily Mail Online

The Britt uncovered this in archives. Lincoln wanted blacks freed so he could deport them. As property...he couldn't due to the 4th amendment. So...he freed them....and was killed before the deportation plan unfolded.

Lincoln was a man who despised blacks.

Your own link contradicts your BS

However, Mr Page, a Fellow of The Queen’s College, Oxford, insisted that it was wrong to conclude Lincoln was a racist.

Blacks had been lynched during recent race riots in New York and the president was motivated by a fear that the freeing of black slaves would cause serious racial strife, said Mr Page.

In addition, Lincoln always made clear the emigration would be voluntary, he said.

 

[theHawk]

There was a lot of money to be made in cotton and the slave rapers did not want to have to share any of it with the labor

The southern cotton producers were trying to keep up with enormous northern demand for cotton. They used slaves because it was really the only way to meet the labor demand. Those slaves were bought with northern money, in order for northerners to get their cotton. A small percentage of southerners were "slavers", but a big majority of northerners were funding it through purchasing cotton goods. Yes, the select rich white plantation owners got rich, but so did northern manufacturing companies.

 

[Katzndogz]

The civil war was fought over whether states had the right to leave the union.

 

[Skylar]

Personally I think it was more about State's rights than slavery.

But slavery was a part of it.

Nope. It was the opposite of States's rights. The South was outraged that they couldn't force the northern states to abide their property claims on slaves. Most of the slavery issue on an intrastate basis was the south using the federal government to force northern state governments to comply with southern slavery.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How could the war be about slavery when BOTH sides practiced slavery?. Yes - the Union had 4 slave states of its own, (ky md mo de) with a total of 400,000 slaves. The idea that lincoln wanted to free the slaves is absurd in light of that fact.

History is written by the victors and so, after the war, the North started the myth that they invaded the south to free the slaves.

Right. The PhD head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point is wrong and you're right.

What a ridiculous response. As though having a phud makes one the Pope or some shit, lol.

No, heads of departments are political animals more than scholars, and this cretin was merely tossing up regurgitated old bullshit for more people like yourself to swallow.

Do you ever actually THINK for yourself or is it always just who ever has the longest list of credentials you think is right?

Facts:

1) the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the Union, it was a war measure to weaken the Souths economy. As some areas fell under Union control in the back and forth of war, after the EP the North had a legal basis for freeing slaves and leaving a crippled economy in their wake along with the ravages caused by typical looting and foraging.

2) The Union army and the federal government long tolerated the ownership and presence of slaves even in the midst of the Civil War. How is that true if the war was being fought to end that very same slavery? Wouldn't they set their own house in order first? In Fact they did the opposite as general Grant had two personal servants who were slaves for the entire war.

3) While a bunch of elites and their public mouth pieces no doubt justified the war in their own minds as the defense of slavery and their economic system, most Southerners were subsistence farmers who owned no slaves and huge areas of the South refused to cooperate with the war effort, like eastern Tennessee, Western Virginia, Northern Alabama and more. But all of them (except West Virginia) defended the South from invasion by sending troops to defend their towns and homes from the devastation a successful Northern invasion would bring. It takes a real idiotlogue to ignore the motivation of trying to keep one's home from being burned to the ground and all a families wealth in cattle and other livestock from being stolen and to focus instead on their ideological rational instead, like slavery. Yeah, some dude loses two sons and is crippled for life so he could defend the rich mans right to own slaves, but defending his own home and town is just a footnote? roflmao

4) Thousands of blacks fought for the South to defend their homes, regardless of slavery.

From the very outset of that stupid video the man leads off with an ad hominem argument that tries to discredit their opponent with some amateur psychological analysis that is not just cheezy and lame, but is actually contrary to the known data.


Only libtards and lackeys appointed by them like this idiot in the video could believe such bullshit.

 

[August West]

How could the war be about slavery when BOTH sides practiced slavery?. Yes - the Union had 4 slave states of its own, (ky md mo de) with a total of 400,000 slaves. The idea that lincoln wanted to free the slaves is absurd in light of that fact.

History is written by the victors and so, after the war, the North started the myth that they invaded the south to free the slaves.

Right. The PhD head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point is wrong and you're right.

What a ridiculous response. As though having a phud makes one the Pope or some shit, lol.

No, heads of departments are political animals more than scholars, and this cretin was merely tossing up regurgitated old bullshit for more people like yourself to swallow.

Do you ever actually THINK for yourself or is it always just who ever has the longest list of credentials you think is right?

Facts:

1) the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the Union, it was a war measure to weaken the Souths economy. As some areas fell under Union control in the back and forth of war, after the EP the North had a legal basis for freeing slaves and leaving a crippled economy in their wake along with the ravages caused by typical looting and foraging.

2) The Union army and the federal government long tolerated the ownership and presence of slaves even in the midst of the Civil War. How is that true if the war was being fought to end that very same slavery? Wouldn't they set their own house in order first? In Fact they did the opposite as general Grant had two personal servants who were slaves for the entire war.

3) While a bunch of elites and their public mouth pieces no doubt justified the war in their own minds as the defense of slavery and their economic system, most Southerners were subsistence farmers who owned no slaves and huge areas of the South refused to cooperate with the war effort, like eastern Tennessee, Western Virginia, Northern Alabama and more. But all of them (except West Virginia) defended the South from invasion by sending troops to defend their towns and homes from the devastation a successful Northern invasion would bring. It takes a real idiotlogue to ignore the motivation of trying to keep one's home from being burned to the ground and all a families wealth in cattle and other livestock from being stolen and to focus instead on their ideological rational instead, like slavery. Yeah, some dude loses two sons and is crippled for life so he could defend the rich mans right to own slaves, but defending his own home and town is just a footnote? roflmao

4) Thousands of blacks fought for the South to defend their homes, regardless of slavery.

From the very outset of that stupid video the man leads off with an ad hominem argument that tries to discredit their opponent with some amateur psychological analysis that is not just cheezy and lame, but is actually contrary to the known data.


Only libtards and lackeys appointed by them like this idiot in the video could believe such bullshit.

Someone who uses a word like Libtard has zero qualifications to call anyone an idiot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

How could the war be about slavery when BOTH sides practiced slavery?. Yes - the Union had 4 slave states of its own, (ky md mo de) with a total of 400,000 slaves. The idea that lincoln wanted to free the slaves is absurd in light of that fact.

History is written by the victors and so, after the war, the North started the myth that they invaded the south to free the slaves.

Right. The PhD head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point is wrong and you're right.

What a ridiculous response. As though having a phud makes one the Pope or some shit, lol.

No, heads of departments are political animals more than scholars, and this cretin was merely tossing up regurgitated old bullshit for more people like yourself to swallow.

Do you ever actually THINK for yourself or is it always just who ever has the longest list of credentials you think is right?

Facts:

1) the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the Union, it was a war measure to weaken the Souths economy. As some areas fell under Union control in the back and forth of war, after the EP the North had a legal basis for freeing slaves and leaving a crippled economy in their wake along with the ravages caused by typical looting and foraging.

2) The Union army and the federal government long tolerated the ownership and presence of slaves even in the midst of the Civil War. How is that true if the war was being fought to end that very same slavery? Wouldn't they set their own house in order first? In Fact they did the opposite as general Grant had two personal servants who were slaves for the entire war.

3) While a bunch of elites and their public mouth pieces no doubt justified the war in their own minds as the defense of slavery and their economic system, most Southerners were subsistence farmers who owned no slaves and huge areas of the South refused to cooperate with the war effort, like eastern Tennessee, Western Virginia, Northern Alabama and more. But all of them (except West Virginia) defended the South from invasion by sending troops to defend their towns and homes from the devastation a successful Northern invasion would bring. It takes a real idiotlogue to ignore the motivation of trying to keep one's home from being burned to the ground and all a families wealth in cattle and other livestock from being stolen and to focus instead on their ideological rational instead, like slavery. Yeah, some dude loses two sons and is crippled for life so he could defend the rich mans right to own slaves, but defending his own home and town is just a footnote? roflmao

4) Thousands of blacks fought for the South to defend their homes, regardless of slavery.

From the very outset of that stupid video the man leads off with an ad hominem argument that tries to discredit their opponent with some amateur psychological analysis that is not just cheezy and lame, but is actually contrary to the known data.


Only libtards and lackeys appointed by them like this idiot in the video could believe such bullshit.

Someone who uses a word like Libtard has zero qualifications to call anyone an idiot.

In your idiot opinion which I don't give two dry old white shits about.

Get over yourself.

 

[Liminal]

Personally I think it was more about State's rights than slavery.

But slavery was a part of it.

States rights to do what?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

How could the war be about slavery when BOTH sides practiced slavery?. Yes - the Union had 4 slave states of its own, (ky md mo de) with a total of 400,000 slaves. The idea that lincoln wanted to free the slaves is absurd in light of that fact.

History is written by the victors and so, after the war, the North started the myth that they invaded the south to free the slaves.

Right. The PhD head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point is wrong and you're right.

HAHAHA. You call that an "argument". Everything i said is true and you know it. Get your butt outta your head, you miserable white-hating racist.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

No- Lincoln never advocated the involuntary deportation of blacks- he proposed a plan for voluntary resettlement of American blacks to Africa and was surprised when he found out that they no more wanted to return to Africa than English Americans wanted to return to the place their ancestors came from 200 years before

And that's still true today. Blacks in america have a better life than they would have in africa. They bitch and bitch about america but they know that white means prosperity and black means poverty.

 

[Katzndogz]

Personally I think it was more about State's rights than slavery.

But slavery was a part of it.

States rights to do what?

Secede from the union.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

No one is saying that the United States fought the rebel states to free the slaves.

.

BS - nearly everyone says that. And it's a brazen lie.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is why we should teach American history again.

 

[WinterBorn]

How could the war be about slavery when BOTH sides practiced slavery?. Yes - the Union had 4 slave states of its own, (ky md mo de) with a total of 400,000 slaves. The idea that lincoln wanted to free the slaves is absurd in light of that fact.

History is written by the victors and so, after the war, the North started the myth that they invaded the south to free the slaves.

Right. The PhD head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point is wrong and you're right.

HAHAHA. You call that an "argument". Everything i said is true and you know it. Get your butt outta your head, you miserable white-hating racist.

Oh please. Spare me the "white-hating racist" bullshit. The facts are clear. Look at what was said by the president and vice-president of the confederacy. Look at what was stated in the confederate constitution. Your attempts to rewrite history don't actually change history. And someone quoting facts that are not flattering to a group of whites that existed 150 years ago does not necessarily hate white. You are the hate-monger. Some of us don't stoop so low.

 

[WinterBorn]

No one is saying that the United States fought the rebel states to free the slaves.

.

BS - nearly everyone says that. And it's a brazen lie.

Then they are as ignorant as you. The US fought the confederate states to bring them back into the union.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The civil war was fought over whether states had the right to leave the union.

That was a a bigger reason than slavery but the really big reason was profiteering. The european bankers wanted to ultimately split america into 5 or 6 countries so they could have continuous wars and make a fortune. Just like they had been doing in europe for 500 years. Bankers love war. They lend money to fight the war and to rebuild the countries after the war.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Then they are as ignorant as you. The US fought the confederate states to bring them back into the union.

You can't read. I agree that's why the north invaded the south. My dispute is with the common claim that it was to free the slaves.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then they are as ignorant as you. The US fought the confederate states to bring them back into the union.

You can't read. I agree that's why the north invaded the south. My dispute is with the common claim that it was to free the slaves.

I can read just fine. That is why I quoted the comment and said that the people who believe that the Union fought the confederacy to free slaves is a stupid as you are. You may have this particular fact right, but you have proven yourself ignorant in many other posts. The main one that comes to mind is your claim that blacks are too stupid to learn higher maths.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You may have this particular fact right, but you have proven yourself ignorant in many other posts. The main one that comes to mind is your claim that blacks are too stupid to learn higher maths.

HAHAHA. But everyone knows that. Why do so few blacks get degrees in technical fields? Blacks earn only 1% of the math and science PhDs in america.

Blacks are mentally inferior - esp in math and science. You're the only one who questions that.