Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was the Civil War about Slavery?
Acton Institute, Prager University ^ | 8/11/2015 | Joe Carter

Posted on 08/11/2015 1:11:21 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.acton.org ...


TOPICS: Education; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: civilwar; dixie; prageruniversity; secession
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 1,081-1,098 next last
To: Genoa

YES!


81 posted on 08/11/2015 4:32:02 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

Winner!


82 posted on 08/11/2015 4:34:07 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
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.

83 posted on 08/11/2015 4:34:44 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: HANG THE EXPENSE
US GRANT had slaves until 1866.ROBERT E.LEE did not have slaves.

Wrong on both counts.

84 posted on 08/11/2015 4:35:35 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

RIGHT, YOU ARE!


85 posted on 08/11/2015 4:37:50 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: windcliff; stylecouncilor

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.”


86 posted on 08/11/2015 4:49:44 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

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


87 posted on 08/11/2015 4:59:26 PM PDT by jmacusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: x

“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!


88 posted on 08/11/2015 5:07:13 PM PDT by jmacusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 48th SPS Crusader

And the lost causers get to write the myths.


89 posted on 08/11/2015 5:16:25 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Lee invaded the North twice.


90 posted on 08/11/2015 6:08:28 PM PDT by jmacusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Yes he did.


91 posted on 08/11/2015 7:03:37 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

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


92 posted on 08/11/2015 7:15:01 PM PDT by MarvinStinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: MarvinStinson
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.
93 posted on 08/11/2015 7:39:47 PM PDT by jmacusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

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


94 posted on 08/11/2015 8:31:11 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Oh bull crap.

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

95 posted on 08/11/2015 8:33:20 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: HANG THE EXPENSE
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.

96 posted on 08/11/2015 8:37:01 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

You betcha


97 posted on 08/11/2015 8:57:48 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
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.

98 posted on 08/11/2015 9:09:20 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
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.

99 posted on 08/11/2015 9:18:34 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

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.


100 posted on 08/11/2015 9:51:31 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 1,081-1,098 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson