JC Callender
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 6,477
- Reaction score
- 3,270
- Location
- Metro Detroit
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It was 100% about slavery. Do you know why they fought for secession, because of slavery.
I have a hard time believing that hundreds of thousands of Americans would die to preserve one side from seceding from another. It's much easier believing that the north would want to fight to the death to free the slaves and the south would fight to the death to keep them. Sure Lincoln made the case to prevent secession, which imo was a slick way of getting as many people as possible on board, but it was ultimately about slavery. Your thoughts?
wrong, slavery was an issue, however some of the issues of the civil war go back as far as thew early 1830's over commerce.
wrong, slavery was an issue, however some of the issues of the civil war go back as far as thew early 1830's over commerce.
Except none of those issues would have led to secession. The slavery issue, without the others, would have. So we are back to the civil war being about(roughly) slavery.
It's more accurate to say the war was fought over government overreach.
In other news, the problem got worse after the war.
secession already had came up in the 1830s over commerce, however to quell the problems over commerce at that time, a compromise was made in law but with a libation of about 15 years, and then the same commerce problems arose again.
read the declarations of independence each state wrote and why left the union, slavery is an issue that its not the only one.
I have a hard time believing that hundreds of thousands of Americans would die to preserve one side from seceding from another. It's much easier believing that the north would want to fight to the death to free the slaves and the south would fight to the death to keep them. Sure Lincoln made the case to prevent secession, which imo was a slick way of getting as many people as possible on board, but it was ultimately about slavery. Your thoughts?
If by "more accurate", you mean entirely wrong, then sure.
What commerce issue is worth a civil war?
So what we see is that the other issues where not enough to cause secession, while slavery was. Thank you for agreeing with me.
A laundry list of gripes to sell something does not change the fact that what caused the states to secede was the issue of slavery.
The Civil War was fought pretty much over slavery. Maybe a bit over State's rights as well, but slavery was definitely the driving factor.
You seem to want to ignore all the cases where the south did complain about the federal government overreaching its authority.
Not just wrong... way wrong.
Many Northerners were against abolishing slavery, or ambivalent or indifferent about it. It was hardly some great and glorious cause that all the noble Yankees were willing to die for. Study a little more history and this will become clear.
Preserving the union was the primary stated issue.
Mainly, it was about economics. For many years the Northern industrial and shipping concerns worked to force the South to do business with them instead of trading directly with foreign companies, for the enrichment of Northern business owners. Their stranglehold on the South's ability to engage in overseas trade was a major cause of the Civil War.
Nor would the average Southerner have died in battle for the "honor" of keeping black slaves. The average Southerner was too poor to afford a slave. The moderately prosperous had maybe one or two. The wealthy plantation owners were the slave owning class in the main and they were few in number.
Loyalty in those days was mainly to ones home state, rather than the nation as a whole. Southerners fought "for their State" and "For State's rights" as their causus-belli.
Like many wars, it was mainly to benefit a small number of the very rich, while the poor were told some noble-sounding cause to engage their support.
The causal agents were complex and many. Boiling it down to some single-cause like slavery is far too simplistic.
I have a hard time believing that hundreds of thousands of Americans would die to preserve one side from seceding from another. It's much easier believing that the north would want to fight to the death to free the slaves and the south would fight to the death to keep them. Sure Lincoln made the case to prevent secession, which imo was a slick way of getting as many people as possible on board, but it was ultimately about slavery. Your thoughts?
I have a hard time believing that hundreds of thousands of Americans would die to preserve one side from seceding from another. It's much easier believing that the north would want to fight to the death to free the slaves and the south would fight to the death to keep them. Sure Lincoln made the case to prevent secession, which imo was a slick way of getting as many people as possible on board, but it was ultimately about slavery. Your thoughts?
Rural agricultural vs city industrial. Industrial had it's own forms of slavery. Industrial won.
I've already read enough history to see that. State's rights and Slavery both played a part in the Civil War, but I still think that the issue of slavery was definitely a driving factor in causing the Southern States to secede from the Union. Lincoln's election was also a causing factor for the South's decision to secede.read history, and you will find more, or don't read, and be partly right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?