Heavy Duty
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 88
- Location
- GA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
And history and the record of it claims otherwise.
Was the War Fought Over Slavery? | American Civil War
No it wasn't. The declarations of secession by the various Southern states explicitly state it was because of slavery. Period.
The war was fought over Southern independence, not over slavery. Lincoln said repeatedly the war was not being fought over slavery. In August 1862, over a year after the war started, Lincoln wrote an open letter to a prominent Republican abolitionist, Horace Greeley, in which he said he did not agree with those who would only “save” the Union if they could destroy slavery at the same time. Lincoln added that if he could “save” the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862, published in the New York Tribune).
In July 1861, after the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) had been fought, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, that declared the war was not being fought to disturb slavery, nor to subjugate the South, but only to “maintain the Union” (i.e., to force the Southern states back into the Union). A few months later, in September, a group of Radicals visited Lincoln to urge him to make compulsory emancipation a war objective. Lincoln declined, telling the Radicals, “We didn’t go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back” (Brodie, Thaddeus Stevens, p. 155; Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76). Later on, about halfway through the war, the Radicals and other Republicans succeeded in making the uncompensated abolition of Southern slavery a secondary goal of the war. However, the primary purpose of the federal invasion was always to destroy Southern independence.
And history and the record of it claims otherwise.
The war was fought over Southern independence, not over slavery. Lincoln said repeatedly the war was not being fought over slavery. In August 1862, over a year after the war started, Lincoln wrote an open letter to a prominent Republican abolitionist, Horace Greeley, in which he said he did not agree with those who would only “save” the Union if they could destroy slavery at the same time. Lincoln added that if he could “save” the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862, published in the New York Tribune).
In July 1861, after the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) had been fought, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, that declared the war was not being fought to disturb slavery, nor to subjugate the South, but only to “maintain the Union” (i.e., to force the Southern states back into the Union). A few months later, in September, a group of Radicals visited Lincoln to urge him to make compulsory emancipation a war objective. Lincoln declined, telling the Radicals, “We didn’t go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back” (Brodie, Thaddeus Stevens, p. 155; Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76). Later on, about halfway through the war, the Radicals and other Republicans succeeded in making the uncompensated abolition of Southern slavery a secondary goal of the war. However, the primary purpose of the federal invasion was always to destroy Southern independence.
Was the War Fought Over Slavery? | American Civil War
And history and the record of it claims otherwise.
Was the War Fought Over Slavery? | American Civil War
No it wasn't. The declarations of secession by the various Southern states explicitly state it was because of slavery. Period.
The whole it was for southern independence and state's rights stuff is bull. The south wanted independence so they could keep their slaves. Plain, and simple.
Specifically, the right of a state to enslave other human beings.
Claiming the Civil War was fought over state's rights or tarriffs is a loathsome attempt to obfuscate the primary motivation for the South's bid for independence.
Ten years is an arbitrary number you pulled right our of your ass. If you want to blame anyone for the Civil War blame the Southern aristocracy for starting it to preserve the South's slave based economy. The Reconstruction era accelerated the enfranchisement of blacks and the granting of full civil rights to them.
The Southern aristocracy controlled the South and the Democratic party in the South. The South used a slave based economy.
This isn't the first time the wealthy elite have convinced the ignorant masses to fight against their own interests. What's particularly galling is that 150 years later you still have ignorant yokels buying into those dusty old rationalizations.
Basically, the leftist position is that in the new multicultural America, white people aren't entitled to have an identity which offends non-whites in the slightest manner. Screw multicultural America. I hope it fails.
ATLANTA — The Civil War, the most wrenching and bloody episode in American history, may not seem like much of a cause for celebration, especially in the South.
And yet, as the 150th anniversary of the four-year conflict gets under way, some groups in the old Confederacy are planning at least a certain amount of hoopla, chiefly around the glory days of secession, when 11 states declared their sovereignty under a banner of states’ rights and broke from the union.
The events include a “secession ball” in the former slave port of Charleston (“a joyous night of music, dancing, food and drink,” says the invitation), which will be replicated on a smaller scale in other cities. - NYT: South celebrates Civil War, without slaves - U.S. news - The New York Times - msnbc.com
I don't think it's a big deal but, how can you "celebrate" the "Civil War" without mentioning one of it's main causes?
No, it does not.
We are talking about the South, not the North. Lincoln maintained it was not about slavery for the North, and it was not in the Northern States.
That has to be one of the most partisan, stupid comments I have ever seen. :roll:
It's like whites getting angry over something like "black history month." They say things like "why don't we have a white history month." You have to remind them it is celebrated all year as Western Civilization class.
I like your analogy but I have to disagree. I'm white and whenever I indicate I'm all fine with multiculturalism.......as long as I can keep mine "ozarks" I, generally, get lambasted and, usually, called a racist. It's tedious. I'm tired of it. Just because I'm white doesn't mean I have to adopt the cultural mores of my upper class white liberal "northeast and west coast" bretheren.
It's going to be a hell of a racial mess when the hispanics final gain the majority. Who will be blamed then?
Ironically, if you've travelled the country, racism is far more rooted and institutionalized in the northeast than in the south. It just isn't talked about because nobody talks to anyone up there. Boston is the worst.
Huh?I'm not arguing one way or the other on the cause of the war, but you are wrong about the excerpt that HD quoted. It's plain English, no nuances there.
That has to be one of the most partisan, stupid comments I have ever seen. :roll:
It's like whites getting angry over something like "black history month." They say things like "why don't we have a white history month." You have to remind them it is celebrated all year as Western Civilization class.
Lincoln wanted to preserve the union, he knew if he said slavery had to go it was over. He was trying to avoid the split. It was about primarily slavery from the perspective of the Southern states.
It's going to be a hell of a racial mess when the hispanics final gain the majority. Who will be blamed then?
I like your analogy but I have to disagree. I'm white and whenever I indicate I'm all fine with multiculturalism.......as long as I can keep mine "ozarks" I, generally, get lambasted and, usually, called a racist.
It's tedious. I'm tired of it. Just because I'm white doesn't mean I have to adopt the cultural mores of my upper class white liberal "northeast and west coast" bretheren.
It still doesn't mean that these people today celebrating the secession of 11 States are also celebrating slavery and desire its return.
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?