The South asnd Slavery

[hcap]

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/11/was_..._answer_is_no/

“Was the Civil War fought over slavery?”: Here’s the video to show idiots who think the answer is “No”

[tucker6]

The answer is a bit more complicated that you are leading yourself to believe Cappy. It was not a black and white issue (pun intended). Slavery, differences in north/south economies, and states rights were all different aspects of the same conversation from the 1820's to the 1860's. Slavery was evil, but to those caught in the net of indentured servitude, that form of economic subjugation was for many no less a form of slavery.

[hcap]

Glad to see you are leaning left on "the net of indentured servitude" common
to the 19th century's rise of unfettered capitalism.

Of course both the remnants of slavery and the robber barons have "trickled down" to us today.

[Tom]

Wow.
Right up on current events, hcap.
So tell me, this telephone thingy....think it will ever catch on?

[MONEY]

Fellow-Countrymen:

AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

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. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
----------------------------------------------
The war was not fought to end slavery.
Lincoln wanted to restrict slavery to the territories that already had it, the
southerners wanted to expand slavery into other territories.

[classhandicapper]

The war was fought because the south SECEDED. The south would have been quite content to split the union in two and peacefully co-exist with the north (kind of what I would like now but for different reasons and along different geographical lines). The north wanted to keep the union intact and went to war over it.

So the correct question to ask is not what caused the war. We already know it was because the south seceded. The correct question to ask is why the south seceded even thought it might cause a war.

Here in their own words is why each state seceded uninfluenced by politics and agendas after the war. It was a variety of reasons, with slavery being the dominant but not the only important one in most cases.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/hi...ww.google.com/


A most interesting statement from Texas:

"Texas

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas."

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The war was fought because the south SECEDED.

Exactly. Unfounded fear that Lincoln would try to end slavery was a major cause for the secession. The North fought the war to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. If slavery was the issue, why did the Emancipation Proclamation not end slavery in the states still in the Union?

[pandy]

Originally Posted by hcap

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/11/was_..._answer_is_no/

“Was the Civil War fought over slavery?”: Here’s the video to show idiots who think the answer is “No”

Excellent video. Yes, the south wanted to secede, but the main reason why they wanted to secede was to keep slavery. I don't see how this is arguable. You could question the exact reason why the north fought the war, but not the south. They south wanted to secede because they were afraid that the Federal Gov't would force them to end slavery.

[woodtoo]

Okay I think I've got it.Will there be a test later?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

Okay I think I've got it.Will there be a test later?

No, the OP is a solution in search of a problem.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

In recent years I've come to realize two things about the American Civil War:

- it's still going on
- the wrong side won

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

In recent years I've come to realize two things about the American Civil War:

- it's still going on
- the wrong side won

Boy......you're doing more than your share of chest beating this morning.

[Marshall Bennett]

Irritating issue. Was hoping hcap would have the thread to himself and eat his own bait.

[Robert Fischer]

We are only humans. I know in our stories that we are great, empathetic creatures, but in reality we are just animals. 'The South' is just a tiny footnote and southerners are the same as northerners.

[reckless]

It was the Democrat Party that supported slavery, then and even now with its regressive policies.

It was the Democrat Party that fought Reconstruction of the South.

It was the ruling Democrat Party in the southern states that lynched blacks and created Jim Crow laws -- all this after the ending of the Civil War.

It was the Democrat Party that stopped Eisenhower's Civil Rights Act bills from passing. It was the Democrat Party that stalled, filibusted and mostly voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act that eventually passed thanks to Republicans.

It is a Democrat Party that virulent racist, anti-semite, anti-Catholic chief justice Hugo Black belonged to; it was Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd who was a high-exalted mystic ruler of the KKK; it was Democrat Bull Connor that hosed and arrested blacks and freedom riders in Alabama; it was uber racist Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, who re-segregated Federal buidlings, drinking fountains and cafeterias while President.

Someone posted earlier that the Civil War is still being fought. I agree.

I believe also that the Democrat Party's war on blacks still exist today. Look what's happened to blacks in all Democrat controlled states and cities, such as Chicago, Ill., Baltimore, Md., Camden, NJ., Philadelphia, Pa., Ferguson, Mo. Hard as they try, the current Democrats and media can't blame all this on Bush-Cheney-Haliburton-Trump.

It was president Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat, who institutionally destroyed the Black family unit.

This disgusting treatment towards blacks, then and now, lands squarely in the lap of the Democrat Party.