No. It was about money and the control of the mouth of the Mississippi.
“Freedom” didn’t win the Civil War. Federalism did.
No, it was about stopping Independence for Southern States. Lincoln made it clear that they could keep slavery, they just could not keep independence.
Washington D.C. Must remain their master.
"It is for us the living, rather..................that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
A. Lincoln
Not really. Sure for some individual people here and there but it really was about the South tired of getting the short end of the stick from the North. They decided they wanted to go out on their own. But the North won the war so they get to write the history. Well at least the history that the race baiters agree with........
I was at the family cemetery the other day in Vermont. Walking around in a spot I had never been, I found ANOTHER great uncle who died in the Civil War at Cold Harbor.
I cannot imagine leaving the northernmost county in Vermont in 1862 and going to get killed in Virgina. I know the type of people these men were. They stick to themselves and don’t let others bother them a lot.
They were not drafted, they all volunteered.
It was either patriotism or moral outrage.
And, while there are a ton of folks on welfare in that part of VT now, it was pretty self sufficient back then. They did not have much use for a Federal government or even the state. So, patriotism does not seem like a viable reason.
That leaves “moral outrage.”
My guess is that times don’t really change much. The reasons to get young men to volunteer for war are often not the real reasons.
The real reasons are often not discussed across the fence.
I honor Almond Priest’s sacrifice. I would have loved a discussion with his three brothers and him.
From the biography *Destruction and Reconstruction* of the War by General Richard Taylor, someone who was there, and in a position to know, from the very beginning of the war until well after it ended.
Aggrieved by the action and tendencies of the Federal Government, and apprehending worse in the future, a majority of the people of the South approved secession as the only remedy suggested by their leaders. So travelers enter railway carriages, and are dragged up grades and through tunnels with utter loss of volition, the motive power, generated by fierce heat, being far in advance and beyond their control. We set up a monarch, too, King Cotton, and hedged him with a divinity surpassing that of earthly potentates. To doubt his royalty and power was a confession of ignorance or cowardice. This potent spirit, at the nod of our Prosperos, the cotton-planters, would arrest every loom and spindle in New England, destroy her wealth...
Extinction of slavery was expected by all and regretted by none, although loss of slaves destroyed the value of land. Existing since the earliest colonization of the Southern States, the institution was interwoven with the thoughts, habits, and daily lives of both races, and both suffered by the sudden disruption of the accustomed tie. Bank stocks, bonds, all personal property, all accumulated wealth, had disappeared. Thousands of houses, farm-buildings, work-animals, flocks and herds, had been wantonly burned, killed, or carried off. The land was filled with widows and orphans crying for aid, which the universal destitution prevented them from receiving. Humanitarians shuddered with horror and wept with grief for the imaginary woes of Africans; but their hearts were as adamant to people of their own race and blood. These had committed the unpardonable sin, had wickedly rebelled against the Lord’s anointed, the majority. Blockaded during the war, and without journals to guide opinion and correct error, we were unceasingly slandered by our enemies, who held possession of every avenue to the world’s ear...
During all these years the conduct of the Southern people has been admirable. Submitting to the inevitable, they have shown fortitude and dignity, and rarely has one been found base enough to take wages of shame from the oppressor and maligner of his brethren. Accepting the harshest conditions and faithfully observing them, they have struggled in all honorable ways, and for what? For their slaves? Regret for their loss has neither been felt nor expressed. But they have striven for that which brought our forefathers to Runnymede, the privilege of exercising some influence in their own government. Yet we fought for nothing but slavery, says the world, and the late Vice-President of the Confederacy, Mr. Alexander Stephens, reëchoes the cry, declaring that it was the corner-stone of his Government...
My wife’s Alabama family valiantly defended their home against the northern invaders ...
ping
A thread on FR about what caused the Civil War?
What could go wrong?
US GRANT had slaves until 1866.ROBERT E.LEE did not have slaves.We call it the war of northern aggression for a reason and did so until the revisionists got after it.
Slavery is still the Issue, it is just a matter of %
Today...
If you are on Welfare and Food Stamps (EBT) Medicare or caid Fixed Income or SS ... sorry pal 100% Slave
If you work, 15% - 75% Slave (Obamacare adds ? %)
Our Kids, their kids and their kids 75% plus ... just by being born because of our debt.
I self identify as a “Free Man” so the crap above does not apply. I did my part to try and stop it, now I am going Galt and I will be left alone or else. (I may be more gone than going) My boundaries are posted, protected and must be observed.
I don’t consider my actions to be an OPUS or a withdrawal just self preservation. (If I was 20 years younger a far different path would be taken)
PS If anyone wishes to walk the path that I am on themselves, my first advice would be to buy Shovels, practice, practice, practice with them and when you need it you will instinctively perform
To some degree yes
The expansion of it
Why would one of the forums premier member of the Neo yankee Dixie is no Better than Nazi Germany circle jerk.....
Ask such a stupid question that you already know the answer to?
are you so bored?
Join a Trump thread but alas I’ve noticed many of you cretins hate The Donald
But given Mr Thompson like The Donald’s play right now you guys have to kinda timid about it
It’s like those commercials ......priceless....lol
Another weird coincidence I noticed was how many south bashers here dig open season unlimited bag on outlaw bikers
You learn a lot about human nature on this here site doncha?
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease.
A. Lincoln
iowamark: "direct link to video:"
Was the Civil War About Slavery
Sorry I'm so late to the party... ;-)
Excellent summary by Col. Seidule, can't say that I've ever seen better.
So, let's see what our Lost Causers say about it... did any even watch it?
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/was-the-civil-war-about-slavery/
A new video entitled “Was the Civil War About Slavery?” from Prager University is currently making the rounds on the Internet. A caption claims that the video “settles the debate once and for all,” superseding over a century’s worth of scholarship by historians who have argued this matter.
But does it really?
The video is filled with misconceptions and myths about the Civil War. The few facts it does get right are vastly outnumbered by the promulgation of incessant fallacies and significant omissions that would severely contradict the narrative.
It is true that several states in their secession ordinances claimed the reason for seceding from the government concerned slave rights. However, this was not the case for the mid-south states, which definitively rejected secession on those grounds and provided different explanations for leaving the union. Tennessee, Arkansas, Virginia, and North Carolina departed from the union only after Lincoln resupplied Fort Sumter and pledged to raise an army of 75,000, while Congress was not in session, with the express purpose of invading other states.
Notwithstanding the fact that some slave states mentioned slavery in their secession ordinances, this pronouncement was not as universal as is commonly believed. For instance, the secession ordinances of Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee do not mention slavery or the slave motive at all. Arkansas’ secession ordinance suggests the primary reason it announced its withdrawal from the union was Lincoln’s proclamation “to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule.” In October 1861, the separatist government of Missouri passed an ordinance which charged that the United States had:
“violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of a State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity.”
The film asserts that “The secession documents of every southern state made clear, crystal clear, that they were leaving the union in order to protect their “peculiar institution” of slavery.” This is a bold-faced lie, and a cursory 5 minute glance at the secession ordinances tells a different tale. While some of the states in the Deep South articulated that they were leaving the union because they feared the dissolution of slave rights, the union government did not attempt impose any anti-slavery legislation at all. In fact, northern officials continued to assert that they would not interfere with slavery where it already existed. The entirety of the debate concerning the expansion of slavery from the 1820s-1850s was predicated on the potential for slavery to expand into the western territories, not its existential presence in the slave states.
Only 415 posts?
YES.
Today's Democrats have changed from their past alright, they've changed for the worse; they want to enslave everyone and are doing it through socialism - bigger government.
Democrats have NEVER apologized for slavery. As the Party of slavery, they owe an apology. But now they want everyone on slave-like dependence to the Federal government.