Posted on 05/01/2017 3:39:29 PM PDT by Timpanagos1
US President Donald Trump has stirred debate by asking why the American Civil War happened, and pondering whether it could have been "worked out".
In a radio interview, he suggested the conflict might have been avoided if President Andrew Jackson had still been in office.
The 1861-65 Civil War between the northern and southern states was principally caused by slavery.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Absolutely untrue.
One theory advanced was that the Constitution was by consent, and states were free to leave.
Had they left, slavery would have been illegal in the north and any slave making it there would have been free, without avenue for pursuit or reimbursement to the slaveholder.
Slavery would have collapsed.
600,000 deaths could have been avoided.
I am tired of those trying to revise history.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You and countless others. But better be careful, the thought police are always on the hunt for people such as you!
It’s kinda hard to leave someone the hell alone when they’re robbing you and shooting at you.
“Maybe this is something we can use against him.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Precisely so.
It was for a very particular reason in their instance, one which they weren't shy in expressing. Alas, Providence did not smile on their designs, and understandably.
Secession to secure the fruits of liberty is not politically analogous to secession in order to secure the power to enslave other human beings. The ends are not ennobled by the means.
How many people died in Fort Sumter?
irrelevant...however you spin it, firing upon a Federal fort was, and is, an act of bellicosity, which opened the door to hostilities...
that it required so much blood to be resolved is another issue that could be debated at some further point...
“principally caused by slavery”?
Are all Brits this stupid?
The principal causes of the American Civil War (the War of Northern Aggression) were in order.
1: Economics.
2: States Rights.
3: Secession; according to Lincoln it was a definite NO NO.
4: Slavery didn’t even enter into it until the North wanted to enlist negroes.
In fact Lincoln said if he could end the war without freeing a single slave he would do it, if he could end the war with freeing only a part of the slaves he would do it, if he had to free all the slaves to end the war he would do it.
President Lincoln knew he NEEDED the support of ALL THE ABOLITIONISTS to win the war.
He does have a point. If James Buchanan had been as decisive as Andrew Jackson was the last time South Carolina talked of succession, and threaten to send the Army to hang all the secessionist, it might have averted the civil war.
Instead he did nothing for awhile then finally made a spineless announcement that the states had no right to secede but the federal government had no right to force them to stay in the union. Then handed the whole mess to Lincoln and scurried on home.
‘IT was about slavery in the south, it was about preserving the Union to the north.’
it would not have been necessary for the Union to fight to preserve itself, had the confederate states not seceded-—over slavery, as you yourself agreed was the southern incentive...
so in that regard, yes the war was over slavery...
as with most Civil War discussions on this forum, which generally devolve into disjointed harangues with plenty of nonsense thrown in, there are pearls of wisdom and truth that can be gleaned...your post is one of these...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just so you’ll know, that remark is uttered fairly often as a response to the various manifestations of racial unrest.
The war was caused by taxes.
‘3: Secession; according to Lincoln it was a definite NO NO.’
what did the seceding states cite as their principle cause of secession...?
‘4: Slavery didn’t even enter into it until the North wanted to enlist negroes.’
funny, I didn’t see that mentioned in the Articles of Secession as promulgated by the states of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia...
Just so you’ll know, that remark is uttered fairly often as a response to the various manifestations of racial unrest.
I’m aware of that; on numerous occasions, I have said the same thing myself...
Slavery was to the American Civil War what tea was to the American Revolution.
So you’re saying we wouldn’t have had the Civil War if Jackson was president a few years later because Jackson “had a big heart” that Lincoln didn’t.
Oki Doki.
I have nothing bad to say about the honor and guts of the Confederate fighting man, only the cause he fought for.
How could he have antagonized anyone? He hadn't even taken office yet when South Carolina seceded
By the way, who said this?
Abraham Lincoln. So what?
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.