Posted on 03/28/2015 5:52:00 AM PDT by C19fan
I do believe that is a strawman argument. The equal and opposite of the strawman argument that the war had nothing to do with slavery.
The WBTS, as is the case with all wars, had multiple causes.
But it is quite indisputable that without slavery there would have been no war. Southern politicians and writers, before the War, were as clear as a bell on this issue. Only after the War did the notion the slavery was not a or the cause of secession become popular.
Well first there were no “negotiations” leading to the insurrection. Seven states announced that they had seceded before Lincoln assumed office.
The north went to war to save the union and won freedom for the slaves in the process. The south went to war to protect slavery and lost everything in the process.
Not entirely accurate and even where accurate somewhat misleading.
Large areas in the Mississippi Valley and along the Atlantic Coast were occupied by Union forces and not excluded by name from the EP. Therefore slaves in these areas were immediately freed on the EP going into effect. The number was somewhere between 50k and 100k.
The EP also took effect in new areas as the Union armies conquered them. By the end of the war the vast majority of slaves were freed by the EP.
About 250,000 were freed by state action of MD, MO and WV.
Some additional hundreds of thousands were freed by puppet state governments in LA, AR and TN. This was pretty much an extension of federal power and was basically a variant of the EP.
Only about 200,000 were freed by 13A, almost all in KY with a couple hundred in DE.
Whoa there bud, FR is not your living room. You don’t win by acting the ugliest.
Sorry, but I was wrong about the number of slaves in KY in 1865. There were over 200,000 in 1860, but the considerable majority had already “freed themselves” by 1865 by running off.
Somewhere around 50k to 60k were still held in bondage to be freed by 13A.
The way I see it is this: The Civil War was fought over federalism, whether states could secede, whether states had the right to self determination. The central government “won”. I see the Confederacy as little different from the Colonies who fought King George for the right to self determination.
No, the Confederate states were forced to remain in the federal club, even though they didn’t want to. What’s “free” about that?
That long ago? Judging from responses to "man on the street" interviews by roving reporters on TV shows such as Watters' World, one would think that schools start history in 2014.
In the War of Northern Aggression!
Largely over the acquisition of the wealth to be found out here in the western states.
You are correct there were no “negotiations” leading up to secession, which was unilateral by each state.
There were, however, multiple attempts by various groups to scramble around and craft a compromise that would end the crisis, as had happened in 1820 and 1850, among other years when sectional crises erupted.
Among those attempts there was a Peace Conference and the Crittenden Compromises.
There was even a Corwin Amendment to the Constitution that would forever protect slavery from interference by the federal government within states. The Amendment passed Congress and was sent to the states for ratification. Lincoln expressed no opposition to the ratification of this amendment, though the President has no role in amending the Constitution.
No the states joined the union voluntarily and wanted out. They would have had to make economic adjustments because owning slaves is wrong and dealing in human flesh is despicable. The central government forced them to stay. Very dictator-like.
States have rights recognized in the our founding documents. Fedgov has enumerated powers. This fight is far from over.
No, the south mounted an armed insurrection and the north reacted defensively. "They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind".
virtually no Confederate soldiers actually owned slaves.
In actual fact, a very large percentage of soldiers, in fact a larger percentage than in the Confederate population, came from slaveowning families.
http://deadconfederates.com/2011/04/28/ninety-eight-percent-of-texas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/
By the standard used to come up with these creative statistics of low Confederate participation in slavery, Scarlett O'Hara was not a slaveowner, since legal title, as with most property in most households, was vested in her Papa.
The link above shows that in some southern states the percentage of slaveowning families was very near a majority.
I live in Osceola Mo a town that Lincoln ordered to be burned along with many others here in Missouri. My children did a research project on the Civil War, Lincoln and the “burnt districts”. Several area residents had parents (now deceased) and grandparents who wrote about and passed on to them many stories of what really went on during the Civil War. My wife and children came away with a totally different view from the ideas I was taught at public (government) school. Neither side was free from wrong doing to some extent that is true but just as we have seen in current events we surely can’t trust those who have re-written history to suite their ends.
Think what you will about the Civil War but no doubt as Stonewall Jackson had stated Slavery was to die a natural death already since it was not compatible with our founding documents taking in their totality.
It is a fact that much of the North including the beloved Lincoln was racist and wanted the “negros” returned to their homeland. Lincoln himself advocated this.
For a healthy counterbalance I recommend a book called “The Real Lincoln”.
If anyone is truly interested I have copies of a book written by a local historian documenting what happened in Missouri prior to the war and after. It is a real eye opener.
These men where prophetic. They could see the dangers we would face if the Federal Government was allowed to grow in scope and power beyond what the Founders intended. We are living that nightmare now.
Lincoln set the stage, Obama is now playing the part as well as many others before him Democrats and Republicans included.
No one but you has made that claim. Sherman even referred to it in #30. Keep up!
Well, that's an untruth. I remember being on a thread in which someone posted a picture of toothless hillbillies with the caption "Southern 'culture' ". You didn't say a word.
Lincoln was no more racist than you or I. He held attitudes that were mainstream for the era. He also advocated voluntary repatriation.
The confederacy enshrined slavery in their constitution effecting precluding any "natural death". The confederates had zero desire to see slavery end.
n arguing that there were some black Confederates, Stauffer draws on at least one ironic source: 19th-century social reformer Frederick Douglass, whose life Stauffer studied for his 2008 book “Giants: The Parallel Lives of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln.” In August 1861, Douglass published an account of the First Battle of Bull Run, which noted that there were blacks in the Confederate ranks. A few weeks later, Douglass brought the subject up again, quoting a witness to the battle who said they saw black Confederates “with muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets.”
Was that the thread where cva posted pictures of dead union soldiers and gloated that he wished there had been more?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.