Was the Civil War about Slavery?

Acton Institute, Prager University ^ | 8/11/2015 | Joe Carter

[x]

The word is secession, no succession, and no, my great-grandfather did not fight for slavery. He fought to defend his home and state from Northern invasion.

I didn't realize your great-grandfather was the guy who started the war. It's good to know who to blame

If he wasn't responsible, if forces larger and more powerful than himself caused the thing, then his own motives for fighting may not tell us why the war started and we may have to look elsewhere for explanations.

[quadrant]

Does anyone seriously believe that thousands of Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio farm boys (not to mention the Irish in the cities) would have enlisted, marched South, fought, bled, and died to free the slaves? To save the Union, yes. To free the slaves? Well, if you believe that, I suggest you get an unlisted telephone number before some calls and convinces you to purchase a big bridge connecting San Francisco and Marin County.

[Genoa]

I should add that the North had been punishing the South for decades with tariffs that favored the manufacturers over the growers.

[Servant of the Cross]

No, it wasn't about slavery. It was about RATS.

[Genoa]

“Johnny Red”? From a red state?

[iowamark]

One more topic to pit FReepers against each other? For what purpose?

You may think that American History has no use in 2015, that it is all irrelevant now. The exact opposite is true.

[lacrew]

I remember even as a wee lad in school thinking that attributing the entire civil war to slavery grossly oversimplified the event.

Lincoln himself did not claim the war to be a war to free slaves...instead he stated it was a war to ‘preserve the union’.

Lincoln later used emancipation as a weapon against the south...but without genuine interest in freeing slaves. How do I know that? For starters, the proclamation did not apply to any slave holding union states.

Historically speaking, in the 19th century, nations just flat did not invade other nations over ‘social issues’. I don’t think a politician or general of the era could resist howling with laughter at the notion the north would invade the south over slavery. Its silly to project 21st century values to a 19th century conflict.

[Jim Noble]

Oh, I don't know. Lets look to South Carolina's Declaration of Causes:

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

[quadrant]

Grant always believed the admission of Texas into the Union was the major cause of the War, for it is impossible to imagine the South as a cultural, political, social, and economic unit without Texas. With Texas, the South is quite viable; but without that huge land mass, the South has no real substance.
And it is important to remember that whatever the status of slavery, Lincoln could not allow the South to leave the Union and for one reason: no US president - esp one from Illinois - could ever allow the port of New Orleans and the mouth of the Mississippi River to be controlled by a foreign power.

[Williams]

Abraham Lincoln’s election was the direct cause of secession and the Civil War. And that was because he opposed the extension of slavery in the territories / new states, which meant slavery was doomed.

So yes it was about slavery and it was brought to a head by the election of Lincoln.

What individual southerners fought for is another matter. Once the confederate states seceded the North was going to invade to preserve the union, meaning many indeed fight to resist what they viewed as northern aggression.

[central_va]

Does anyone seriously believe that thousands of Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio farm boys (not to mention the Irish in the cities) would have enlisted, marched South, fought, bled, and died to free the slaves?

A lot of idiotic Freepers believe that, DoodleDawg poop being one of them.

[blackdog]

NO!

[Vendome]

A succession of events and prevailing thoughts made cause for the Southern States to secede.

They were ultimately unsuccessful and ceded to Northern aggressions in which the Union Forces successfully forced the Confederates to accede to demands for peace.

[x]

Does anyone seriously believe that thousands of Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio farm boys (not to mention the Irish in the cities) would have enlisted, marched South, fought, bled, and died to free the slaves?

They didn't start the war either. If you're looking for causes of the conflict, you won't find them in why one particular soldier went to war.

[central_va]

Most Southerners were glad there was ANY reason to shoot at Yankees with a GFE rifle and ammo. Slavery works as good as any.

[Vendome]

I should add: “They Conceded”...

[lacrew]

“just READ the Articles of Confederation”

I’m confused...wasn’t that circa 1777?

[Lizavetta]

Northerners were no less “racist” than southerners,

When blacks began moving northward looking for work, weren't there quite a few violent episodes of white on black riots?

[Little Ray]

No. It was about money and the control of the mouth of the Mississippi.

[BykrBayb]

Not sure why, but your post made me think of this song. Or at least the title.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r0qBaBb1Y-U