Was the Civil War about Slavery?

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

[iowamark]

What caused the Civil War? That seems like the sort of simple, straightforward question that any elementary school child should be able to answer. Yet many Americans—including, mostly, my fellow Southerners—claim that that the cause was economic or state’s rights or just about anything other than slavery.

But slavery was indisputably the primary cause, explains Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

The abolition of slavery was the single greatest act of liberty-promotion in the history of America. Because of that fact, it’s natural for people who love freedom, love tradition, and love the South to want to believe that the continued enslavement of our neighbors could not have possibly been the motivation for succession. But we should love truth even more than liberty and heritage, which is why we should not only acknowledge the truth about the cause of the war but be thankful that the Confederacy lost and that freedom won.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

YES!

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Winner!

[DoodleDawg]

They didn't have control of the conflict, nor do they have to justify their reasons for exercising a right given "by nature, and nature's God" to have independence from a government that no longer suited their interests.

Oh bull crap.

The only person who's reasons matter was Abe Lincoln, and he specifically said he was going to continue slavery if the south would just stop trying to be independent of Washington D.C.

More bull crap.

[DoodleDawg]

US GRANT had slaves until 1866.ROBERT E.LEE did not have slaves.

Wrong on both counts.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

RIGHT, YOU ARE!

[onedoug]

I’d like to think that I wouldn’t have supported slavery. But my fealty to the North ends there.

“When they lower me down in that sweet Southern ground, have someone play Dixie for me.”

[jmacusa]

Sure seems to me the South was defending slavery. You have to take them at their word.

[jmacusa]

“I didn’t realize your great-grandfather was the guy who started the war. It’s good to know who to blame’’ ROTHFLMAO!!!! Oh man, that’s funny as hell!

[rockrr]

And the lost causers get to write the myths.

[jmacusa]

Lee invaded the North twice.

[Williams]

Yes he did.

[MarvinStinson]

But the Princeton professors say Lee was not a good general.

[jmacusa]

He wasn't. Any military man worth his salt wouldn't and in Lees position wouldn't have gone to war. Even though Lee won battles he should have seen the hand writing on the wall after Gettysburg and certainly the very next day, July 4, 1863 when Vicksburg fell. Having invaded your enemy's territory he has soundly defeated you in an epic three day battle, which includes a near suicidal infantry charge into the face of enemy fire forever known in military jargon as a suicidal tactic , your enemy has now seized what had been your capitol city(Vicksburg) which is an important river port city, has geographically split your own home territory in two and given your enemy control of one of the worlds largest rivers which had been your main avenue of movement and supply. Any one with brain and any moral decency would see that there should have been no point in continuing to fight but Lee led the carnage for another two years.

[DiogenesLamp]

That Abe Lincoln was calling the shots? How could you believe anything else? If not him, then who?

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh bull crap.

A rebuttal worthy of your knowledge and understanding of this subject.

[DiogenesLamp]

RIGHT, YOU ARE!

I grew up believing the usual spiel, and then I learned how what I had been taught doesn't actually conform to bits of history that were subsequently brought to my attention.

I was shocked when I discovered Lincoln was willing to continue slavery. It painted him in a very different light than I had been led to believe.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

You betcha

[Tau Food]

Both sides had people who were calling the shots for their own side. The Union could have avoided war by allowing the secessions to take place and the folks on the other side could have avoided war by not seceding in the first place or by calling off the secessions in early 1861.

In other words, bloodshed was the result of the failure by each side to give the other side what it wanted.

[DiogenesLamp]

In other words, bloodshed was the result of the failure by each side to give the other side what it wanted.

Except that one side had a moral and acknowledged right (1776) to get what it wanted. (Independence) The other side did not have a right to get what it wanted. (Subjugation)

Your argument is like saying that a rapist and a rape victim are morally equivalent; that each one fights to get what they want is true, but the moral difference between what one wants and what the other wants are not at all the same.

[Tau Food]

I know that you believe that the secessionists were right and that the Union was wrong. So, this is all simple for you. People have tried to explain to you why they believe that the Union had a right to maintain the integrity of the USA, but you have rejected that reasoning and so you continue to believe as you believe. And, that’s okay. It’s okay that you disagree with other people about this matter and it’s okay that you’re unhappy with the way in which our history unfolded. It shouldn’t shock you to learn that I am unhappy with some of the things that happened in our nation’s history, too. It’s all very normal to feel that way.