Was the Civil War fought over 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:

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.

Well lets go through step by step.

The Colonel says that slavery was by the far the main cause of the Civil War.

Do you disagree with that- and if so- provide something to counter the quotes that the Colonel presented as part of his argument.

I have yet to see you offer anything other than your hardly objective opinion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

So despite the FACT that anti-rebellion areas still fought to defend the South, you just cant make that little connection to DEFENSE OF HOMES instead of defense of something that had no bearing on their actual lives?

roflmao

 

[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.

Well lets go through step by step.

The Colonel says that slavery was by the far the main cause of the Civil War.

Do you disagree with that- and if so- provide something to counter the quotes that the Colonel presented as part of his argument.

I have yet to see you offer anything other than your hardly objective opinion.

I gave three reasons for my claim that slavery was only one cause, a catalytic cause, if you know what that is, and I gave a reason why I found his analysis to be invalid.

So you have done with this thread the same shallow, jump to conclusion analysis that you have done with the Civil War itself.

Gosh

 

[DigitalDrifter]

One thing I totally 100% DISAGREE with this guy on, is being proud of the U.S. military's engagement in the war to end slavery.

Over 600,000 Americans were violently killed in the Civil War. I'm disgusted with both sides, although the north more so.

The unionists should have worked within the government, the business sector, and Europe, to place a huge amount of financial pressure on slave states to end slavery. Even if it took decades, and even after the South firing on Ft. Sumter, they should have went in a different direction.

600,000 Americans dying to free others was not worth it.

 

[Skylar]

[

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.

Check your dates again. The 'attack' you speak of what on January 8th. Florida didn't secede until January 10th.

It wasn't an attack by the confederacy or against it. It was some local idiots who tried to burglarize Ft. Barrancas.

 

[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.

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.

“Black Confederates” is one of the most controversial ideas of the Civil War era and American memory more generally. Today, neo-Confederates claim that thousands of blacks loyally fought as soldiers for the South and that hundreds of thousands more served the Confederacy as laborers. These claims have become a staple among Southern heritage groups and are taught in some Southern schools. Their function is to purge t...he Confederacy from its association with slavery and redeem the white South from guilt over its past. In this they have been partly successful: according to a recent poll, 70% of white Southerners continue to believe that the Confederacy was motivated by states rights rather than slavery.


Academic historians, in reaction to these claims, have totally dismissed the idea that more than a handful of African Americans could have served as Confederate soldiers. To suggest otherwise, they say, is to engage in “a pattern of distortion, deception, and deceit” in the use of evidence.

But according to African Americans themselves, writing during the war, thousands of blacks did fight as soldiers for the South. In my presentation, I assess and contextualize the sources, examine case studies of blacks fighting for the Confederacy, and explain how and why it happened and how Northern black leaders understood this phenomenon. Along the way I reveal the richly diverse ways in which blacks acted on their understandings of freedom."

John Stauffer Lectures on Black Confederates at Harvard CIVIL WAR MEMORY

 

[Skylar]

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.

But none of that is actually true.. The war began because of the attack on Ft. Sumpter. That initiated the miltiary conflict. The States lack the authority to secede. So this was a rebellion. Which the president has the military authority to put down.Its quite impossible to 'invade' your own territory.

Preserving the union was the North's purpose in the civil war. Preserving Slavery was the South's.

Read the actual declaration of Secession from South Carolina. It cites Slavery 18 times. 25 times if you include the word 'property' as meaning slaves, which the South Carolina declaration document made explicit is what they meant.

That's in a 27 paragraph document.

The South Carolina secession declaration essentially has two arguments: That secession is legal under the constitution and that they seceding because of slavery.

That's it. Don't take my word for it. Read it yourself:

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

 

[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.

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.

You mean on January 8th- when American troops fired on Southern troops trying to take Fort Barrancas?
Military History Online - Fort Barrancas
On Jan. 8, 1861, United States Army guards repelled a group of men intending to take Fort Barrancas in Pensacola Harbor. Historians say that this event could be considered the first shots fired on Union forces in the Civil War. [1]

The South did invasions in order to try to win the war, after starting the official hostilities by firing on American troops at Fort Sumter.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

As pointed out in the video- the Southern Rebel slave holding states stated very clearly that the reason for secession was to protect slavery.

The reason the South seceded was to protect that 'partcular institution'- and then they went to war to defend their right to that particular institution.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

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.

Wrong again, the Confederacy invaded the North several times. Ever hear of Gettysburg or Antietam?

95% of the war was fought on southern soil.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Well lets go through step by step.

The Colonel says that slavery was by the far the main cause of the Civil War.

Do you disagree with that- and if so- provide something to counter the quotes that the Colonel presented as part of his argument.

I have yet to see you offer anything other than your hardly objective opinion.

I gave three reasons for my claim that slavery was only one cause, a catalytic cause, if you know what that is, and I gave a reason why I found his analysis to be invalid.

So you have done with this thread the same shallow, jump to conclusion analysis that you have done with the Civil War itself.

Gosh

And, once again, someone posted a link to the Cornerstone Speech. I think the vice-president of the confederacy would be a pretty good authority on why the states seceded and why the war was fought.

 

[Skylar]

[

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.

Wrong again, the Confederacy invaded the North several times. Ever hear of Gettysburg or Antietam?

95% of the war was fought on southern soil.

Yup. That's where the rebellion was.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

. You are the one claiming that blacks are intellectually inferior and incapable of learning higher maths. YOUR statement includes all blacks. .

I never said that, you lying moron. Of course there are smart blacks. Not very many but there are some.

 

[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.

“Black Confederates” is one of the most controversial ideas of the Civil War era and American memory more generally. Today, neo-Confederates claim that thousands of blacks loyally fought as soldiers for the South and that hundreds of thousands more served the Confederacy as laborers. These claims have become a staple among Southern heritage groups and are taught in some Southern schools. Their function is to purge t...he Confederacy from its association with slavery and redeem the white South from guilt over its past. In this they have been partly successful: according to a recent poll, 70% of white Southerners continue to believe that the Confederacy was motivated by states rights rather than slavery.


Academic historians, in reaction to these claims, have totally dismissed the idea that more than a handful of African Americans could have served as Confederate soldiers. To suggest otherwise, they say, is to engage in “a pattern of distortion, deception, and deceit” in the use of evidence.

But according to African Americans themselves, writing during the war, thousands of blacks did fight as soldiers for the South. In my presentation, I assess and contextualize the sources, examine case studies of blacks fighting for the Confederacy, and explain how and why it happened and how Northern black leaders understood this phenomenon. Along the way I reveal the richly diverse ways in which blacks acted on their understandings of freedom."

John Stauffer Lectures on Black Confederates at Harvard CIVIL WAR MEMORY

John Stauffer Black Confederates and the Case for Military History CIVIL WAR MEMORY

At the center of this controversy is a question about the status of Civil War soldiers. Between 1861 and 1865 somewhere around 3 million Americans served in Union and Confederate ranks. These men have been the subject of serious historical inquiry for at least the last 60 years, going back to Bell Wiley’s Billy Yank and Johnny Reb. The most thorough studies of their recruitment, organization, experience while in the ranks, and eventual discharge is predicated on a thorough understanding of the relevant sources. There are enlistment papers, muster rolls, draft records, compiled service records, and pension records. Both armies were managed by a military and civilian bureaucracy that only adds to the challenge of researching the men on both sides, who volunteered or were drafted.

As I am currently learning with my own research on the 55th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry this can be incredibly tedious work. Records sometimes conflict and are often incomplete. At the same time, however, the wealth of material means that we can say a great deal about Civil War soldiers and the units in which they served.

With this in mind what stands out like a sore thumb in Stauffer’s piece is the complete lack of any attempt to bring to bear these sources in support of specific claims made. In fact, I would go so far to suggest that Stauffer is not even aware that he has waded into a field that demands an understanding of specific archival sources. Is he aware that such sources even exist? As far as I know none of Stauffer’s previous books address military topics directly so I can’t say for sure one way or the other.

No one in their right mind can claim that upwards of 6,000 black men served as soldiers in Confederate ranks without having consulted specific military records. Again, there is no indication that Stauffer has done any research into military records relating to this claim or any other individuals or units referenced in his essay. At one point in the essay Stauffer cites a source that references the presence of entire regiments of black soldiers from Georgia and South Carolina, but once again does not seem to understand that there are plenty of sources that could be consulted to corroborate this specific piece of evidence.

The gulf between the claims made and the kinds of evidence applied by Stauffer in support of his conclusions ought to be seen as a warning to anyone who makes the decision to wade into a new field of historical inquiry. Stauffer would do well to take the field of military history more seriously.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Well lets go through step by step.

The Colonel says that slavery was by the far the main cause of the Civil War.

Do you disagree with that- and if so- provide something to counter the quotes that the Colonel presented as part of his argument.

I have yet to see you offer anything other than your hardly objective opinion.

I gave three reasons for my claim that slavery was only one cause, a catalytic cause, if you know what that is, and I gave a reason why I found his analysis to be invalid.

So you have done with this thread the same shallow, jump to conclusion analysis that you have done with the Civil War itself.

Gosh

And, once again, someone posted a link to the Cornerstone Speech. I think the vice-president of the confederacy would be a pretty good authority on why the states seceded and why the war was fought.

....

. 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.

Yeah, what the fuck would the Vice-President of the Confederacy know about the Civil war and its causes. Clearly the revisionists know better.

 

[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.

Check your dates again. The 'attack' you speak of what on January 8th. Florida didn't secede until January 10th.

It wasn't an attack by the confederacy or against it. It was some local idiots who tried to burglarize Ft. Barrancas.

Yep, I stand corrected, it was Ft Barrancas. And they were not 'local idiots' as you put it but the local state militia coming to ask the surrender of the fort as secession was known to be imminent.

"After the war, R.L. Sweetman of Mobile, Alabama, informed Slemmer that he had been one of the men seen at the drawbridge that night. According to his version of events, word had reached parties of volunteers and militia forming in the area that the U.S. troops had evacuated Fort Barrancas. He went with a friend to see if the report was true, only to encounter the fire of the guards at the gate of the fort. No one was injured, but he and his comrade quickly ran to safety."

Civil War Florida January 8 1861 - Fort Barrancas and the First Shots of the War

 

[JimBowie1958]

. 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.

Yeah, what the fuck would the Vice-President of the Confederacy know about the Civil war and its causes. Clearly the revisionists know better.

Yeah because the slave owners point of view was the only one in the south and they did all the fighting.

 

[bodecea]

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.

And don't forget that the red and white colors of the Maryland flag were used as the banner for MD secessionists. That means that those colors need to be removed from the flag and all MD sports teams, etc.

Ever listened to the Maryland state song? Whoa!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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

Again the board has caught you lying. Almost all TEXTBOOKS say the north was fighting to free the slaves. Real history books say otherwise.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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

Sorry but no one believes those numbers. More like 10%