[Hawkeyeted]

Martin, on 03 March 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

"It wasn't slavery, it was states' rights." What rights? The right to hold slaves. This is a distinction without a difference.

The Southern states choose to engage in trade with other countries external of the authorization from the federal government. It is specifically enumerated in the Constitution that international trade is in the Federal governments pervue.

Quote

"It wasn't slavery, it was economies." What sort of economy? A slave-based economy. Another distinction without a difference.

Yes. A profitable economy that used slave labor.

The war wasn't about freeing slaves. It was about preventing the South from seceding, thereby preserving the Union. Slavery became the rallying cry that unified popular support. As such, I no doubt that slavery became a "talking point" by Lincoln.

This post has been edited by Hawkeyeted: 04 March 2012 - 09:43 AM

[The Beef]

JesseR72, on 03 March 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

I think it is worth noting that NO UNION soldiers were killed during the attack. Nor were they taken prisoner as the Confederacy allowed the surrendering Union troops to sail back to New York City once the Fort was taken. Still, Lincoln called for each state still in the union to provide troops for an invasion of the rebelling southern states. This caused Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas to secede the Union and join the Confederacy.

By firing on the fort, the Confederates made it clear they wanted war. Read Sherman quote above.

[The Beef]

Hawkeyeted, on 04 March 2012 - 12:41 AM, said:

The Southern states choose to engage in trade with other countries external of the authorization from the federal government. It is specifically enumerated in the Constitution that international trade is in the Federal governments pervue.



Yes. A profitable economy that used slave labor.

The war wasn't about freeing slaves. It was about preventing the South from seceding, thereby preserving the Union. Slavery became the rallying cry that unified popular support. As such, I no doubt that slavery became a "talking point" by Lincoln.

I would like to add to what you're saying by pointing out that the US didn't go to war against the Japanese to liberate China, or the USSR go to war against Nazi Germany to end the Holocaust, but both happened due to the war. Just because it wasn't the original purpose doesn't mean that it shouldn't be given the credit. The non-seccesionist (my native land of Oregon was Union, and sent two regiments to fight, so don't call it "The North" http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/1609494245) efforts ended slavery. It may not have been the rallying-cry, but it happened due to the Union victory.

[Mr. E. Monkey]

The Beef, on 04 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

I would like to add to what you're saying by pointing out that the US didn't go to war against the Japanese to liberate China, or the USSR go to war against Nazi Germany to end the Holocaust, but both happened due to the war. Just because it wasn't the original purpose doesn't mean that it shouldn't be given the credit. The non-seccesionist (my native land of Oregon was Union, and sent two regiments to fight, so don't call it "The North" http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/1609494245) efforts ended slavery. It may not have been the rallying-cry, but it happened due to the Union victory.

Absolutely, but does that answer the original question?

Quote

Was slavery one of the issues that caused the Civil War or was it the central issue?

Personally, as far as it pertains to the issue of slavery/states' rights, I maintain that the issue of personhood is one that should be decided at the federal level.


(Completely unrelated, from a history perspective, you might be interested in this. It's not far to the west of Tucson. I had absolutely no idea until I moved down here.)

[Timothy]

vectorsrule, on 02 March 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

I won't attempt to answer all your questions but will take a shot at the slavery issue. The Civil War was fought to free the slaves is the biggest lie in history. This war, as in all wars are fought over money and resources. There is OVERWHELMING evidence to support this.

If the war was "fought to free the slaves" then why:

First we have to distinguish between the two sides and causes. Attacking one doesn't excuse the other.

The North didn't fight primarily to end slavery, but preserve the Union. The North still felt strongly enough about slavery that the majority pushed the issue to the point of the South seceded over the issues. The Southern cause however, was undoubtedly primarily to defend slavery.

Pointing out how the North wasn't primarily fighting to end slavery as an excuse for the South would be like excusing the Nazis because the Allies weren't primarily fighting to stop genocide.

Quote

[color="#0000FF"]1. Did the emancipation proclamation only free slaves in States that were rebelling? That means five slave states (counting W.V.) fought for the union. Nobody seems to know this. Read it, it is only one page long.

There are a couple of reasons why this line of thinking is wrong.

First, as many acknowledged at the time, the emancipation proclamation effectively marked the death knell of slavery if the North won, because its existence in the slave states that went with the Union was marginal and wouldn't' have survived if it was abolished in the heartland of slavery, the South.

Second, Lincoln was operating within his authority as President and the political power and initiative he had at that point in the war, where it could be justified as a war measure.

And most importantly, it's a straw man argument because it completely ignores the 13th amendment, which completely outlawed slavery everywhere in the Union, and was passed near the end of the war. You don't need for the Emancipation Proclamation to completely abolish slavery in order for the North to have abolished slavery everywhere. It always amazes people use this flat out ignorant argument so often, when it so blatantly and completely ignores the 13th amendment.

Quote

2. Did Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The end of that letter:

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free..

Quote

3. Was slavery made illegal until AFTER the civil war? If it had been fought FOR that reason the North would have made it illegal before the war.

The North was trying to contain it before the war, thwart the fugitive slave law, etc. Just because abolish wasn't seriously on the table at the time didn't mean that slavery wasn't the chief issue of the day.

Quote

4. Did most Confederates who fought and died have no slaves? Having a slave was a rich man's thing. Why would anyone die to let a rich man own a slave?

Because it was the foundation of their social system. They aspired to be slave owners themselves, and also didn't want all the blacks running loose outside of slavery (the slave owners did a good job making them fear this).

There was some dissension in primarily mountainous non-slave holding areas, West Virginia (which actually seceded from Virginia and the Confederacy), large elements in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.

[Diamond369]

Thank you for answering all of those questions for me. Why did blacks and Native Americans fight for the Confederacy? Were blacks forced to serve for the Confederacy since the vast majority were enslaved? Also, what were to happen if the South had won?

[james t kirk]

Diamond369, on 05 March 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Thank you for answering all of those questions for me. Why did blacks and Native Americans fight for the Confederacy? Were blacks forced to serve for the Confederacy since the vast majority were enslaved? Also, what were to happen if the South had won?

I am not aware of any large numbers of blacks fighting for the confederacy. In the Union army there were in fact over 200,000 black troops including the 54'th of Massachusetts. As to WHY blacks fought on the side that was keeping them in bondage, one can only speculate that they had no choice. If they didn't they ran the risk of being killed, or their families being killed. Who knows. Maybe they were promised their freedom and they figured that fighting in a war with a chance of freedom was better than nothing.

As to what would have happened if the south would have one, I would suspect that slavery would have continued as a Confederate sanctioned institution until well into the 1900's (perhaps as long as into the 1930's) only ending when the rest of the world was so disgusted with the practice that the south would have been a virtual piriah.

It's a good thing that the north did win isn't it.

[Scootaloo]

SARGE, on 02 March 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

A bad comparison.

The USSR was government, not private enterprise.

It wasn't cheap to own slaves. The cotton gin, steam-power, etc. were better capital investments.

Actually, it was cheap to own slaves. That's the entire appeal of slavery, in every slave-holding society in history from Babylon all the way up to modern sweatshops in the "Free Trade Zones" of Manilla. You don't have to pay them. You don't have to clothe them. They grow their own food - though you can take as much of it from them as you want. And they reproduce. Granted, buying a new slave was a pricy investment, but by the time of Secession, it wasn't like there was any upward mobility in the southern states anyway; if you had slaves, you could afford to buy a new one if you wanted, and if you didn't have any slaves, you never were going to. Hell, it's why after the war, slavery persisted as "sharecropping." it was cheaper to have some dude you didn't have to pay to do all the labor, than to buy and maintain mechanical equipment. And the cotton gin actually EXPANDED slavery, point of fact; it's what made cotton so massively profitable, which resulted in more, bigger fields, which of course called for vast amounts of field labor.

Also, it's worth noting that slavery WAS the government. The southern states and their interests dominated the government of the United States. To the point where they could impose their demands to violate the rights of other states (the refusal of New Jersey to violate its own laws to allow South Carolinans to kidnap freedmen from New Jersey was a thorn in the craw of South Carolina, according to their declaration of secession). The whole point of secession was, in fact, mostly a threat at first - "rig the election or we'll ditch." Every article of discussion brought up to prevent secession was centered around enshrining slavery in the constitution, or expanding slavery in the western territories, even conquering the Caribbean and making it "slave territory." Hell, there was even discussion of achieving national solidarity by starting a war with England or France.

And the south, confident that it had everyone else by the balls, refused all these conciliatory offers coming out of congress. They figured they had the manpower to beat the crap out of the north, and impose their own desires on the other states. So they went ahead and seceded; prior to the firing on Sumter, southern politicians and newspapers were already demanding death and destruction to everyone north of the line.

Of course, once the war started, it turns out the south had to keep a lot of guns pointed at their own people - plenty of southern whites had no interest in living under a feudal confederacy, and of course there were all the slaves that needed watching. Plus, it turns out, even though the north was undermanned compared to the south, they were vastly better-armed. Maybe if the plot to capture St. Louis had been successful, history would have been different... But it didn't. Because Germans kicked rebel ass.

At the end of the day, YES, the war was about slavery. Even before secession, our nation was engaged in a war between slavery and freedom; see Kansas in the 1850's, and tell me that wasn't the first sign of a war between slavery and freedom. When the southern states seceded, they did so with their "right" to own slaves on their lips - again, see the South Carolina Declaration of Secession (other states' declarations are either explicit in their slavery-based reasons for secessions, or expressing solidarity for those states that are so open.) Lincoln did not cite "freeing the slaves" as his reasons for war - because the Congress he was addressing was a staid, conservative organization that regarded "abolition" one of the worst words that could be spoken even in impolite company... but everyone, on both sides of the line, understood that it would be the inevitable result of the war, and it was a rallying cry both for service in the war, and for resistance to the war (See the New York draft riots)

[Scootaloo]

Diamond369, on 05 March 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Thank you for answering all of those questions for me. Why did blacks and Native Americans fight for the Confederacy? Were blacks forced to serve for the Confederacy since the vast majority were enslaved? Also, what were to happen if the South had won?

Actually, the only place where blacks freely served in the confederate ranks was in local militias in New Orleans; mostly due to the fact that at that point of history, pretty much everyone in New Orleans fell under the "one drop rule" anyway. Legally, anyone the confederate government considered a negro was forbidden from being armed. Of course, most of the labor in the army camps was performed by slaves, both rented from landowners and supplied by men serving. And when crap hit the fan, it was probably better to face a dressing-down from your commanding officer for handing ol' Henry a rifle, than to have your position overtaken by the enemy because you needed a few more guns firing.

Why did slaves so armed not turn on their masters? Simple self-preservation. The union troops are shooting at you and, whatever you might think of the white men around you, they are not shooting at you. And by putting a gun in your hand, your master has basically decided that if the union takes this position, you're getting shot with the rest of the men, so you don't want those guys to win.

As for the Indians... the Confederacy promised to recognize "Indian territory" as an Indian-administered state in the confederacy, if the confederacy won; this is a goal the people of Indian Territory had been trying to achieve for awhile, so they took what they could get. of course, given that most of the tribes involved had been cleansed from their homelands by the very same people now promising them status, I would doubt that such a deal would have been honored.

If the South had won... Honestly? That's such a far-fetched scenario that I can't even imagine. it's like "what if Japan had occupied the mainland US?" - it just wasn't going to happen, period. However, there was, prior to Sumter, the very real chance of the Confederacy solidifying itself and standing as a true and independent nation. If this had happened, odds are West Virginia would not exist, the Union capital would likely have been moved to Philadelphia instead of staying in Washington, and the confederacy would have tried to expand into Mexico and the Caribbean.

[JesseR72]

The Beef, on 04 March 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

By firing on the fort, the Confederates made it clear they wanted war. Read Sherman quote above.

No. By firing on the Fort, the Confederates made it clear that they did not want Federal cannons pointed at one of their major ports. Simple as that. Lincoln provoked the battle by continuing to build up troops and arms to Fort Sumter. The fact that the Confederate army allowed the Union troops to return North was a gesture to show that they did NOT want war. Lincoln (and quite frankly most historians) acted as if the attack on Fort Sumter was another "Alamo" which needed to be avenged. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This post has been edited by JesseR72: 05 March 2012 - 07:07 PM

[Timothy]

james t kirk, on 05 March 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

I am not aware of any large numbers of blacks fighting for the confederacy. In the Union army there were in fact over 200,000 black troops including the 54'th of Massachusetts. As to WHY blacks fought on the side that was keeping them in bondage, one can only speculate that they had no choice. If they didn't they ran the risk of being killed, or their families being killed. Who knows. Maybe they were promised their freedom and they figured that fighting in a war with a chance of freedom was better than nothing.

As to what would have happened if the south would have one, I would suspect that slavery would have continued as a Confederate sanctioned institution until well into the 1900's (perhaps as long as into the 1930's) only ending when the rest of the world was so disgusted with the practice that the south would have been a virtual piriah.

It's a good thing that the north did win isn't it.

Scootaloo, on 05 March 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

Also, it's worth noting that slavery WAS the government. The southern states and their interests dominated the government of the United States. To the point where they could impose their demands to violate the rights of other states (the refusal of New Jersey to violate its own laws to allow South Carolinans to kidnap freedmen from New Jersey was a thorn in the craw of South Carolina, according to their declaration of secession). The whole point of secession was, in fact, mostly a threat at first - "rig the election or we'll ditch." Every article of discussion brought up to prevent secession was centered around enshrining slavery in the constitution, or expanding slavery in the western territories, even conquering the Caribbean and making it "slave territory." Hell, there was even discussion of achieving national solidarity by starting a war with England or France.

And the south, confident that it had everyone else by the balls, refused all these conciliatory offers coming out of congress. They figured they had the manpower to beat the crap out of the north, and impose their own desires on the other states. So they went ahead and seceded; prior to the firing on Sumter, southern politicians and newspapers were already demanding death and destruction to everyone north of the line.

Of course, once the war started, it turns out the south had to keep a lot of guns pointed at their own people - plenty of southern whites had no interest in living under a feudal confederacy, and of course there were all the slaves that needed watching. Plus, it turns out, even though the north was undermanned compared to the south, they were vastly better-armed. Maybe if the plot to capture St. Louis had been successful, history would have been different... But it didn't. Because Germans kicked rebel ass.

I agree with you in general but I have to point out that the North wasn't "undermanned" because that's far from true.

The North was far more populous than the South and was winning the demographic/growth battle, largely due to greater immigration. The North had about 22 million people, the South about 9 million, and 3-4 million of those were slaves. http://en.wikipedia....y_and_aftermath What's more, the North was growing at a larger rate and could make up its losses in immigration and natural growth.

Many chauvinistic southerners believed that they were better fighters and that that would make up the difference. They also had the advantage of being on the defensive.

It's true that slave interests dominated the government for a long time. That wasn't necessarily because the South was superior, but because for a long time the majority of the North wasn't anti-slavery and went along with it. The South was more determined to preserve and spread slavery than the North (in general) was to stop it. Southern belligerence, growing anti-slavery sentiment in the North, and all the political fighting that evolved from it, eventually changed that. And the North was also growing (both economically and demographically) at a much greater pace. And that eventually led to the North using their greater numbers to elect an anti-slavery Lincoln over the great objection of Southerners.

This post has been edited by Timothy: 05 March 2012 - 10:36 PM

[Scootaloo]

Timothy,

In terms of enlisted military and officers, the confederacy outnumbered the union at something like a 3:1 ratio. I'd have to hit the books to see the exact number.

Speaking of, if you guys haven't seen it yet, the (relatively) new book, 1861 by Adam goodheart is very informative about all the stuff that was happening on either side during hte lead-up to the war.

[Howsithangin]

Scootaloo, on 06 March 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

In terms of enlisted military and officers, the confederacy outnumbered the union at something like a 3:1 ratio. I'd have to hit the books to see the exact number.

Then why, in every major battle, did the number of union troops vastly exceed those of the confederacy?

total numbers

and here

and here

sorry, incorrect

This post has been edited by Howsithangin: 06 March 2012 - 05:56 AM

[Timothy]

Scootaloo, on 06 March 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

Timothy,

In terms of enlisted military and officers, the confederacy outnumbered the union at something like a 3:1 ratio. I'd have to hit the books to see the exact number.

Are you referring to men in the pre-war army?

Quote

Speaking of, if you guys haven't seen it yet, the (relatively) new book, 1861 by Adam goodheart is very informative about all the stuff that was happening on either side during hte lead-up to the war.

I'll have to put it on my "to read" list.

[furrpiece]

Diamond369, on 02 March 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

So I have reading parts of liberal lies about American history and I was wondering how many blacks, Native Americans, and how many whites in the North and in the South owned slaves? What part of the American slavery business was about race and racism? Was slavery one of the issues that caused the Civil War or was it the central issue? Were all of the slaves in teh United States after the 1600s black? I was also wondering this because of all of the research I did, there is no definite answer. I believe slavery had something to do with the Civil War, yet I have a feeling that it isn't the central issue because of the times. Many whites felt that blacks were inferior and I doubt that they, in the North and in the South, would fight for the rights of black people to be free. The south wanted to expand slavery because it was profitable for them and the North own slaves as well. What was the truth about the Civil War and how should it be taught in American schools today? Did the Confederacy or rather, was the Confederacy about keeping blacks "in line" or rather, as slaves so to speak? Is the Confederate flag a racist symbol? I want to know what you think.

Diamond,

I don't know where you got your education, but I'd like to congratulate your teachers on turning out someone with extraordinary skills at logic.

You're absolutely right about the Civil War.

In fact, J. Rufus Fears, an OU professor who is an expert on Lincoln and the Civil war, says that the Civil War was fought over economics, state's rights as embodied in the U.S. Constitution, and "more the idea of slavery rather than the practice of owning slaves".

Slavery existed in the North and in the South. But, in practice, there were very few people who owned slaves, because slaves were extremely expensive.

Propaganda existed as much then as today. People in the North told their slaves the war was all about the South. Southern slaves fought for the Confederacy because they believed the North was wrong, and that the southern families they worked for would lose their land and they would be sold to strangers.

There were other reasons, but that hits the high points.