Was the Civil War fought over slavery?

[Liminal]

[

Slavery was absolutely the cause of the civil war. As it was the cause of the south seceding and eventually waging war against the United States. .

HAHAHA. The south didn't wage war, you fool. They were invaded and defended themselves in a war entirely started by lincoln.

The Confederacy initiated hostilities, actual historians don't dispute that.

 

[2aguy]

This has been argued numerous times on these forums. I saw this and thought I would add it to the evidence.



Colonel Ty Seidule is the head of the history dept at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

By the way- I don't normally care for Youtube video's- but this guy is the real deal. Worth listening to.

Dennis Prager's "Prager University" is a great collection of short lessons.

 

[Liminal]

Yes. But not how you think.

SOUTH: Rich whites owned the slaves. They made up 3% of the South. They also owned the newspapers. They brainwashed many poor farmers to think they were fighting a just war. They werent. Sad. That's what the battle flag reps for SOME Southern whites: being duped and sacrificed to fight for the rich man. But it was about slaves.


NORTH: Abe Lincoln wanted to deport all blacks. Wanted them sent to work in South American and colonies for American interests (Google it. It's true). BUT....the 4th Amendment prevented this....because slaves were property...not citizens. He needed to free the slaves so they could be deportable.



In short....rich Southerners wanted blacks as slaves. Rich Northerners wanted blacks deported. We fought a war over it. Lincoln got shot after victory and never succeeded with his deportation plan. Much like Iraq....the war aftermath didn't go as planned despite winning.


That's it. Ugly on all sides.

Not quite accurate, many people were invested in slavery.
1860 Census Results

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You didn't even watch the video did you?

No one is claiming that the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in the United States- Lincoln himself proclaimed it was a war measure.

What that has to do with whether the Civil War was fought over slavery?

As the video pointed out- there is no escaping the conclusion that the Southern slave holding states rebelled over the issue of slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

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:


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.

There was no legal basis to free slaves in States that were not in rebellion- until the 13th Amendment was passed.

But you knew that right?

The North did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South did go to war to protect their right to own human property.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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

As the video pointed out- the slavery system had tremendous support within the slave holding rebel states because even the poorest white free man had someone who he was legally and socially superior to- and could aspire to become a wealthy slave holder himself.

Of course the citizens of Virginia and South Carolina etc were ready to defend themselves- but they supported the secession- and they supported the leaders who choose to go to war.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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

200,000 blacks fought for the North- a large amount of whom were escapted- and freed slaves.

Please provide some evidence that 'thousands of blacks' fought for the South- I have looked- and other than the slaves accompanying their masters into battle, I have found little documented evidence of free blacks fighting for the Confederacy.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Was the Confederacy a Conservative government- or a Liberal government?

Was the Confederacy a Conservative government- or a Liberal government?

 

[Skylar]

Yes. But not how you think.

SOUTH: Rich whites owned the slaves. They made up 3% of the South. They also owned the newspapers. They brainwashed many poor farmers to think they were fighting a just war. They werent. Sad. That's what the battle flag reps for SOME Southern whites: being duped and sacrificed to fight for the rich man. But it was about slaves.


NORTH: Abe Lincoln wanted to deport all blacks. Wanted them sent to work in South American and colonies for American interests (Google it. It's true). BUT....the 4th Amendment prevented this....because slaves were property...not citizens. He needed to free the slaves so they could be deportable.



In short....rich Southerners wanted blacks as slaves. Rich Northerners wanted blacks deported. We fought a war over it. Lincoln got shot after victory and never succeeded with his deportation plan. Much like Iraq....the war aftermath didn't go as planned despite winning.


That's it. Ugly on all sides.

Not quite accurate, many people were invested in slavery.
1860 Census Results

The percentage lave owning families in some of those states were as high as 50% and as low as 13%, with about 28% being an average for the confederacy.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Have you ever posted something that was actually true? I can't remember an instance.

The only one promoting the 'myth' that the North invaded the South to free the slaves is you.

The North did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South went to war to protect their right to own human property.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes. But not how you think.

SOUTH: Rich whites owned the slaves. They made up 3% of the South. They also owned the newspapers. They brainwashed many poor farmers to think they were fighting a just war. They werent. Sad. That's what the battle flag reps for SOME Southern whites: being duped and sacrificed to fight for the rich man. But it was about slaves.


NORTH: Abe Lincoln wanted to deport all blacks. Wanted them sent to work in South American and colonies for American interests (Google it. It's true). BUT....the 4th Amendment prevented this....because slaves were property...not citizens. He needed to free the slaves so they could be deportable.



In short....rich Southerners wanted blacks as slaves. Rich Northerners wanted blacks deported. We fought a war over it. Lincoln got shot after victory and never succeeded with his deportation plan. Much like Iraq....the war aftermath didn't go as planned despite winning.


That's it. Ugly on all sides.

Not quite accurate, many people were invested in slavery.
1860 Census Results

wow- excellent- 46% of South Carolina families owned at least one slave.
49% of Mississippi families owned at least one slave.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Thats what all the racists keep saying.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Who?

Feel free to point them out. If its nearly everyone then almost every example should say so.

 

[Syriusly]

The North's first and primary reason for going to war was to preserve the union, the issue of ending slavery was secondary, but the issue became more and more important as the war progressed.

As the war progressed lincoln emphasized ending slavery more and more but he didn't really care. It was a PR stunt with two goals

1. Keep france and england from entering the war on the side of the South
.

Not a PR stunt- it was a brilliant move.

Yes it helped persuade France and England to stay out of the war- but it also brought thousands of black escaped slaves into the Union Army- fighting against the Confederacy.

It encouraged slaves to escape North to freedom, thereby depriving the Confederacy of their slave labor.

And it gave a new moral purpose to the war, bringing the absolutionists on board.

 

[Syriusly]

The North's first and primary reason for going to war was to preserve the union, the issue of ending slavery was secondary, but the issue became more and more important as the war progressed.

As the war progressed lincoln emphasized ending slavery more and more but he didn't really care. It was a PR stunt with two goals

1. Keep france and england from entering the war on the side of the South

2. Induce slaves to rise up and kill the white women and children left on the plantations.

Oh, he cared. He'd long argued, in public and in private, that the practice of slavery was immoral. His support for Emancipation however was practical. First, as a way of weakening the South's ability to wage war. And second, as it became clear that the rebellion was drawing to a close Lincoln looked at the issue as a matter of long term viability for the country. And Lincoln didn't believe that the US would survive divided into free and slave states.

The moral implications were secondary. Though Lincoln cared deeply about the issue, moral implications weren't his motivation for either Emancipation Proclamation or the end of slavery.

Though his interactions with Fredrick Douglas seemed to have an impact on Lincoln. And in his final year may have allowed his moral beliefs to motivate some of his actions regarding slavery. His stance on citizenship for former slaves certainly shifted in large part due to Douglas.

Exactly- hardly surprising that Lincoln's point of view shifted some during his Presidency- it was a steep learning curve during the most troubled time in our nation's history.

 

[Syriusly]

[

Slavery was absolutely the cause of the civil war. As it was the cause of the south seceding and eventually waging war against the United States. .

HAHAHA. The south didn't wage war, you fool. They were invaded and defended themselves in a war entirely started by lincoln.

The South started the war by firing on American troops, and invaded the loyal states multiple times.

 

[guno]

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

But slavery was a part of it.

“Corner Stone” Speech
Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History

 

[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.

You didn't even watch the video did you?

No one is claiming that the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in the United States- Lincoln himself proclaimed it was a war measure.

What that has to do with whether the Civil War was fought over slavery?

As the video pointed out- there is no escaping the conclusion that the Southern slave holding states rebelled over the issue of slavery.

Yes, I did watch the video and the statement that there is 'no escaping the conclusion' that leftist ideologues preach to us is total bullshit and not valid objective history.

 

[JimBowie1958]

[

Slavery was absolutely the cause of the civil war. As it was the cause of the south seceding and eventually waging war against the United States. .

HAHAHA. The south didn't wage war, you fool. They were invaded and defended themselves in a war entirely started by lincoln.

The South started the war by firing on American troops, and invaded the loyal states multiple times.

The Union fired the first shots at Pensecola's Ft Pickens


Fort Pickens - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And the South only did counter-invasions in a vain effort to encourage the Union to keep troops home for defense.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The North did not go to war to free the slaves- but the South did go to war to protect their right to own human property.

Then you just gave up the argument because the only reason that there was a war is because the Union invaded the South, so the Unions motivations were the driving motivation for the war and you just admitted it was not to stop slavery.

Also, when you say that the South was more desiring to protect slavery THAN THEIR OWN HOMES AND TOWNS just shows how ideologically brain washed you are on this topic.