How we know the so-called ‘Civil War’ was not over slavery

[stjames1_53]

How we know the so-called ‘Civil War’ was not over slavery
by Paul Craig Roberts (https://personalliberty.com/author/paulcraigrobertspl/)

~snip~
When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article ( http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/21/lincoln-myth-ideological-cornerstone-america-empire/ ) the question that lept to mind was, “How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn’t fighting against slavery?”
Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.
Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.
If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery. ~snip~

https://personalliberty.com/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/21/lincoln-myth-ideological-cornerstone-america-empire/

I've been saying there was more at stake here than meets the eye...........this is an interesting read.
The 13th A freed no one. This and the 14th A, in fact, enslaved us to the federal government. All are equal in federal slavery
It is my contention that the North needed those southern ports, so the war, in part, was fought over real estate

[Crepitus]

Yer off yer nut dude. The succession movenment was started over lincoln's election on a platform that limited slavery to places where it already existed. The sole goal of the South in the civil war was preserving and extending slavery. That is and will remain a fact no matter how many RWNJ blogs you quote from.

[Ethereal]

Yer off yer nut dude. The succession movenment was started over lincoln's election on a platform that limited slavery to places where it already existed. The sole goal of the South in the civil war was preserving and extending slavery. That is and will remain a fact no matter how many RWNJ blogs you quote from.
Actually, their goal was to dissolve the union with the north. Slavery was merely incidental.

[Ethereal]

There was zero threat to slavery in the south when the south seceded. That is a fact.

The south simply decided that it was no longer in their best interests to continue their political connection with the north. It had absolutely nothing to do with any fear over slavery being abolished in the south.

[midcan5]

I may have answered that in the thread below but I'll add pertinent info for the interested reader. As for the apologist for the confederacy like any belief nothing will convince them as their belief is not based on fact but an emotional connection.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/87136-Robert-E-Lee-is-Not-Our-Heritage



States Rights apologies - The *Civil War was over Slavery

A few documents and sources about a topic that constantly finds apologists and revisionists. This will be a work in progress as new sources of information are found.

"I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

[b]But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html

[b]"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

"In this unprecedented account, Chandra Manning uses letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers to take the reader inside the minds of Civil War soldiers-black and white, Northern and Southern-as they fought and marched across a divided country. With stunning poise and narrative verve, Manning explores how the Union and Confederate soldiers came to identify slavery as the central issue of the war and what that meant for a tumultuous nation. This is a brilliant and eye-opening debut and an invaluable addition to our understanding of the Civil War as it has never been rendered before." http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/107198/what-this-cruel-war-was-over-by-chandra-manning/

"In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including Mississippi:

'Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin...."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/

"Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. " WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers and Slavery (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=122)


John Bingham and the Story of American Liberty: The Lost Cause Meets the 'Lost Clause' https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343460


Southern arguments for and against: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/86991/southern_arguments_for_and_against.html?cat=37

Argument v Lincoln's position: http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

Does the constitution allow secession: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War (http://www.americanheritage.com/events/articles/web/20060919-reconstruction-white-line-adelbert-ames-civil-war-ulysses-s-grant-nicholas-lemann.shtml)

SCOTUS ruling on secession: Texas v. White (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZS.html)

Admission of state to union FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/16.html#2)

"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act "entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support "this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from above url)

And an early OP on topic.

John Bingham and the Story of American Liberty: The Lost Cause Meets the 'Lost Clause'

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343460

[Hoosier8]

There was zero threat to slavery in the south when the south seceded. That is a fact.

The south simply decided that it was no longer in their best interests to continue their political connection with the north. It had absolutely nothing to do with any fear over slavery being abolished in the south.
True, slavery was still legal. Lincoln was always against slavery and thought creeping emancipation would eventually abolish it but used his war powers act during the civil war to free the slaves of confederate states.

[Ethereal]

If the constitution does not allow for secession, which is exactly what Americans did when they rebelled against the British, then it is totally illegitimate.

[Ethereal]

True, slavery was still legal. Lincoln was always against slavery and thought creeping emancipation would eventually abolish it but used his war powers act during the civil war to free the slaves of confederate states.

He "freed" them and then about a million of them got sick and/or died. Many others returned to the plantation in order to work as de facto slaves because they had no real opportunities or skills aside from living on a plantation and working for a master. The northern "liberation" of southern slaves was exceedingly well thought out, obviously.

[Hoosier8]

If the constitution does not allow for secession, which is exactly what Americans did when they rebelled against the British, then it is totally illegitimate.

The constitution says nothing about secession. The illegality was decided by the Supreme Court in 1869 with Texas v White.

[Ethereal]

The constitution says nothing about secession. The illegality was decided by the Supreme Court in 1869 with Texas v White.
If that's the case, then the constitution is illegitimate.

[Safety]

I may have answered that in the thread below but I'll add pertinent info for the interested reader. As for the apologist for the confederacy like any belief nothing will convince them as their belief is not based on fact but an emotional connection.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/87136-Robert-E-Lee-is-Not-Our-Heritage



States Rights apologies - The *Civil War was over Slavery

A few documents and sources about a topic that constantly finds apologists and revisionists. This will be a work in progress as new sources of information are found.

"I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

[b]But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html

[b]"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

"In this unprecedented account, Chandra Manning uses letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers to take the reader inside the minds of Civil War soldiers-black and white, Northern and Southern-as they fought and marched across a divided country. With stunning poise and narrative verve, Manning explores how the Union and Confederate soldiers came to identify slavery as the central issue of the war and what that meant for a tumultuous nation. This is a brilliant and eye-opening debut and an invaluable addition to our understanding of the Civil War as it has never been rendered before." http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/107198/what-this-cruel-war-was-over-by-chandra-manning/

"In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including Mississippi:

'Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin...."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/

"Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. " WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers and Slavery (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=122)


John Bingham and the Story of American Liberty: The Lost Cause Meets the 'Lost Clause' https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343460


Southern arguments for and against: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/86991/southern_arguments_for_and_against.html?cat=37

Argument v Lincoln's position: http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

Does the constitution allow secession: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War (http://www.americanheritage.com/events/articles/web/20060919-reconstruction-white-line-adelbert-ames-civil-war-ulysses-s-grant-nicholas-lemann.shtml)

SCOTUS ruling on secession: Texas v. White (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZS.html)

Admission of state to union FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/16.html#2)

"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act "entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support "this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from above url)

And an early OP on topic.

John Bingham and the Story of American Liberty: The Lost Cause Meets the 'Lost Clause'

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343460

Fucking. Boom.

"but, but, but the north didn't like negroes either!"

[Ethereal]

$#@!ing. Boom.

More like splat.

It's just conventional US government mythology that never looks beneath the surface.


"but, but, but the north didn't like $#@!es either!"

An entirely accurate statement supported by a mountain of facts.

[Safety]

He "freed" them and then about a million of them got sick and/or died. Many others returned to the plantation in order to work as de facto slaves because they had no real opportunities or skills aside from living on a plantation and working for a master. The northern "liberation" of southern slaves was exceedingly well thought out, obviously.

"hey, I know you're tired of riding in the back of the bus, but we must wait for the status quo to decide whether or not we are human" - said no civil rights leader...ever.

[stjames1_53]

We are supposed to be separate republics, with a common will to defend our borders. It was set up, the fed gov, to be paid for by duties on imports and exports. That was to include the cost of a military supported by taxes from the many states during times of war with America, to protect our shores from foreign invasion.
Well, that's the way it started out.....Then along comes the Civil War and all of that changed.
Now, we not only have the state telling us what will be tolerated, we have to answer to the fed gov......only a slave class answers in such a manner.

[Chris]

I may have answered that in the thread below but I'll add pertinent info for the interested reader. As for the apologist for the confederacy like any belief nothing will convince them as their belief is not based on fact but an emotional connection.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/87136-Robert-E-Lee-is-Not-Our-Heritage



States Rights apologies - The *Civil War was over Slavery

A few documents and sources about a topic that constantly finds apologists and revisionists. This will be a work in progress as new sources of information are found.

"I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”

I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.

[b]But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html

[b]"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

"In this unprecedented account, Chandra Manning uses letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers to take the reader inside the minds of Civil War soldiers-black and white, Northern and Southern-as they fought and marched across a divided country. With stunning poise and narrative verve, Manning explores how the Union and Confederate soldiers came to identify slavery as the central issue of the war and what that meant for a tumultuous nation. This is a brilliant and eye-opening debut and an invaluable addition to our understanding of the Civil War as it has never been rendered before." http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/107198/what-this-cruel-war-was-over-by-chandra-manning/

"In citing slavery, South Carolina was less an outlier than a leader, setting the tone for other states, including Mississippi:

'Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin...."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/

"Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. " WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers and Slavery (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=122)


John Bingham and the Story of American Liberty: The Lost Cause Meets the 'Lost Clause' https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343460


Southern arguments for and against: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/86991/southern_arguments_for_and_against.html?cat=37

Argument v Lincoln's position: http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

Does the constitution allow secession: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War (http://www.americanheritage.com/events/articles/web/20060919-reconstruction-white-line-adelbert-ames-civil-war-ulysses-s-grant-nicholas-lemann.shtml)

SCOTUS ruling on secession: Texas v. White (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZS.html)

Admission of state to union FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/16.html#2)

"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act "entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support "this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from above url)

And an early OP on topic.

John Bingham and the Story of American Liberty: The Lost Cause Meets the 'Lost Clause'

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=343460



And then you have other documents: The cause of the Civili War is not so clear for the very VP Stephens who once spoke about it in terms of slavery, declared in A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States, "It was a strife between the principles of Federation, on the one side, and Centralism, or Consolidation, on the other." Davis in The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government wrote they'd "fought for the maintenance of their State governments in all their reserved rights and powers."


How do we reconcile these differences?


Perhaps there's a Marxist in the house to perform the magic of Hegelian Dialectic.

[Safety]

More like splat.

It's just conventional US government mythology that never looks beneath the surface.



An entirely accurate statement supported by a mountain of facts.

And the point keeps soaring over your head like the sun. If I had to choose between being a slave, or being free but having to deal with people not liking me because of the color of my skin, I will choose to be free every time. Hell, I deal with people not liking me here any day of the week and twice on Sunday and it doesn't phase me one bit. I actually enjoy watching ya'll twist and squirm to try and rationalize your arguments based upon feelings and what great-grandpappy told you.

[Safety]

And then you have other documents: The cause of the Civili War is not so clear for the very VP Stephens who once spoke about it in terms of slavery, declared in A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States, "It was a strife between the principles of Federation, on the one side, and Centralism, or Consolidation, on the other." Davis in The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government wrote they'd "fought for the maintenance of their State governments in all their reserved rights and powers."


How do we reconcile these differences?


Perhaps there's a Marxist in the house to perform the magic of Hegelian Dialectic.

Maybe there's a minarchist that is able to understand logic.

[Mister D]

"hey, I know you're tired of riding in the back of the bus, but we must wait for the status quo to decide whether or not we are human" - said no civil rights leader...ever.
Now there's some moral outrage. :wink:

[Mister D]

Maybe there's a minarchist that is able to understand logic.
I'd be happy enough finding someone who can understand this post.

[Safety]

Now there's some moral outrage. :wink:

With some legal positivism to boot.

[Safety]

I'd be happy enough finding someone who can understand this post.

Didn't make it past 5th grade, did ya?

[Mister D]

With some legal positivism to boot.

No, you tend to drop the legal positivism when you're being genuine. That's a good thing. It demonstrates that you don't actually believe the really stupid shit that you say when you're frustrated.

[Mister D]

Didn't make it past 5th grade, did ya?
Zing. :rollseyes:

[Safety]

No, you tend to drop the legal positivism when you're being genuine. That's a good thing. It demonstrates that you don't actually believe the really stupid shit that you say when you're frustrated.

Oh, it was never dropped, evidently that's my "schtick". The only frustrated peons here are the ones that are still trying to argue about the confederacy but instead chose to discuss me. That is my cue that it has struck all the WNs emotionally, physically, and mentally.

[Ethereal]

"hey, I know you're tired of riding in the back of the bus, but we must wait for the status quo to decide whether or not we are human" - said no civil rights leader...ever.
So it's okay that a million slaves got sick and/or died and that many others simply remained on their plantations in a state of de facto slavery? Hey, at least you and other liberals get a warm and fuzzy feeling about the great "liberation" that took place. That's what matters most.

[Mister D]

Oh, it was never dropped, evidently that's my "schtick". The only frustrated peons here are the ones that are still trying to argue about the confederacy but instead chose to discuss me. That is my cue that it has struck all the WNs emotionally, physically, and mentally.
"WN" :laugh: Cigarette is so appropriate.

Yes, it was dropped and it was dropped because it's really stupid, Safety. When you get frustrated you get stubborn and when you get stubborn you sound like an idiot. You know, the kind of guy who believes slavery is morally wrong but can't just come out and say it because...well you know. :wink:

[Safety]

So it's okay that a million slaves got sick and/or died and that many others simply remained on their plantations in a state of de facto slavery? Hey, at least you and other liberals get a warm and fuzzy feeling about the great "liberation" that took place. That's what matters most.

Make sure you bring that up at the next civil war reenactment. Do they let you carry the flag?

[Safety]

"WN" :laugh: Cigarette is so appropriate.

Yes, it was dropped and it was dropped because it's really stupid, Safety. When you get frustrated you get stubborn and when you get stubborn you sound like an idiot. You know, the kind of guy who believes slavery is morally wrong but can't just come out and say it because...well you know. :wink:

If it walks like a duck.....

There's no need for me to say anything about how morally wrong or right it may be, it has been deemed illegal. Take that frustration you are attempting to project on me and turn it into something useful, like gardening or drinking.

[Ethereal]

And the point keeps soaring over your head like the sun. If I had to choose between being a slave, or being free but having to deal with people not liking me because of the color of my skin, I will choose to be free every time. Hell, I deal with people not liking me here any day of the week and twice on Sunday and it doesn't phase me one bit. I actually enjoy watching ya'll twist and squirm to try and rationalize your arguments based upon feelings and what great-grandpappy told you.

Nobody cares what you would choose. This isn't about you, as much as you would like it to be. This is about actual slaves. And you are not their spokesperson, last time I checked.

[Ethereal]

Make sure you bring that up at the next civil war reenactment. Do they let you carry the flag?
Is this your way of dancing around the fact that the north's "liberation" of the southern slaves was a humanitarian disaster?

[Safety]

Nobody cares what you would choose. This isn't about you, as much as you would like it to be. This is about actual slaves. And you are not their spokesperson, last time I checked.

Hmmm, I wonder who they would appreciate more, someone that is a faux egalitarian that advocates for their continued servitude by being a Confederacy sympathizer, or someone that advocates for civil/social equality....

I wonder....

[Mister D]

Nobody cares what you would choose. This isn't about you, as much as you would like it to be. This is about actual slaves. And you are not their spokesperson, last time I checked.
Now hold on...they were practicing some serious Voodoo last Friday. Apparently, they know what long dead slaves were thinking.

[Mister D]

Hmmm, I wonder who they would appreciate more, someone that is a faux egalitarian that advocates for their continued servitude by being a Confederacy sympathizer, or someone that advocates for civil/social equality....

I wonder....
Seriously? In any case, what's the big deal about slavery? :)

[Safety]

Is this your way of dancing around the fact that the north's "liberation" of the southern slaves was a humanitarian disaster?

Tell that to the slaves that didn't live long enough to be freed. Humanitarian disaster is the best you have?

Are you whistling Dixie while you post?

[Ethereal]

If it walks like a duck.....

There's no need for me to say anything about how morally wrong or right it may be, it has been deemed illegal. Take that frustration you are attempting to project on me and turn it into something useful, like gardening or drinking.
But it was deemed legal when the south seceded. So if what you say is true, that the south seceded over slavery, then they were 100% legally in the right, which negates your entire argument.

[Mister D]

If it walks like a duck.....

There's no need for me to say anything about how morally wrong or right it may be, it has been deemed illegal. Take that frustration you are attempting to project on me and turn it into something useful, like gardening or drinking.
So why was it deemed illegal, Safety? Sounds like people thought there was something wrong with it. :laugh:

[Ethereal]

Hmmm, I wonder who they would appreciate more, someone that is a faux egalitarian that advocates for their continued servitude by being a Confederacy sympathizer, or someone that advocates for civil/social equality....

I wonder....
I never advocated for their continued servitude. I merely pointed out the fact that nobody cares what you would prefer. I also pointed out the fact that you're not the spokesperson for slaves in the south.

[Mister D]

But it was deemed legal when the south seceded. So if what you say is true, that the south seceded over slavery, then they were 100% legally in the right, which negates your entire argument.
oooooh

[Safety]

Seriously? In any case, what's the big deal about slavery? :)

Maybe just opposing WNs that takes glee in wanting to dump them in the Atlantic?


It's where we settled former slaves. You're saying we probably should have dumped them overboard half way across?

[Mister D]

Tell that to the slaves that didn't live long enough to be freed. Humanitarian disaster is the best you have?

Are you whistling Dixie while you post?
Ethereal, he's goingto ask you to meet him in Naperville soon. :laugh:

[Safety]

But it was deemed legal when the south seceded. So if what you say is true, that the south seceded over slavery, then they were 100% legally in the right, which negates your entire argument.

Deemed legal by whom? That means the civil war was just a myth like the moon landing?

[Safety]

Ethereal, he's goingto ask you to meet him in Naperville soon. :laugh:

^^ One trick pony demonstrating his one trick...

[Ethereal]

Tell that to the slaves that didn't live long enough to be freed.

Do you have a point?


Humanitarian disaster is the best you have?

Not sure what you mean. That the north's "emancipation" of southern slaves was a humanitarian disaster on a massive scale is historical fact.


Are you whistling Dixie while you post?

No.

[Safety]

I never advocated for their continued servitude. I merely pointed out the fact that nobody cares what you would prefer. I also pointed out the fact that you're not the spokesperson for slaves in the south.

Sure, with advocates like yourself, why would anyone need civil rights leaders.... :rofl:

[Mister D]

Maybe just opposing WNs that takes glee in wanting to dump them in the Atlantic?
What? :laugh: You're trying too hard, Safety.

[Ethereal]

Maybe just opposing WNs that takes glee in wanting to dump them in the Atlantic?
You cannot even answer a simple question. How ridiculous.

[Safety]

Do you have a point?



Not sure what you mean. That the north's "emancipation" of southern slaves was a humanitarian disaster on a massive scale is historical fact.



No.

All of a sudden, the most vocal, self-identified intellectual is unable to comprehend logic.

[Ethereal]

Ethereal, he's goingto ask you to meet him in Naperville soon. :laugh:
Reference to luxurious rental property in three, two, one...

[Mister D]

Deemed legal by whom? That means the civil war was just a myth like the moon landing?
By the US government for one. :laugh:

[Mister D]

Reference to luxurious rental property in three, two, one...
He's having a meltdown.

[Safety]

You cannot even answer a simple question. How ridiculous.

Says the ringleader.

[Safety]

By the US government for one. :laugh:

Where did the US government deem the south's secession "legal"? Need some extra time to google?

[Safety]

He's having a meltdown.

Words have meanings, let me know if you need more time between posts to make sure you understand the words you use.

[Mister D]

Where did the US government deem the south's secession "legal"? Need some extra time to google?
He's talking about slavery, Freddy. :laugh:

[Safety]

What? :laugh: You're trying too hard, Safety.

It's like fishing in a barrel, all I have to do is copy and paste your own words for all the support my argument needs.

[Mister D]

Words have meanings, let me know if you need more time between posts to make sure you understand the words you use.
Poor bastard is unraveling. :laugh:

[Mister D]

It's like fishing in a barrel, all I have to do is copy and paste your own words for all the support my argument needs.
Whatever you say. :laugh:

[Ethereal]

Deemed legal by whom?

The framers of the constitution, the northern political establishment, Abraham Lincoln, etc.

Any other dumb questions?


That means the civil war was just a myth like the moon landing?

What the...?

[Mister D]

Says the ringleader.
The Grand Cyclops! :shocked: :laugh:

[Ethereal]

Sure, with advocates like yourself, why would anyone need civil rights leaders.... :rofl:
Do you have a point?

[Mister D]

The framers of the constitution, the northern political establishment, Abraham Lincoln, etc.

Any other dumb questions?



What the...?
Reading comprehension is racist.

[Ethereal]

All of a sudden, the most vocal, self-identified intellectual is unable to comprehend logic.
Many people have difficulty comprehending your "logic".

[Ethereal]

He's having a meltdown.
It's been going on for over a year now.

[Ethereal]

Says the ringleader.

Uh, okay?

Can you answer the question or not?

[Mister D]

It's been going on for over a year now.
It's bad tonight. I almost feel bad.

[Ethereal]

Where did the US government deem the south's secession "legal"? Need some extra time to google?
We were talking about the legality of slavery. If the south seceded over slavery, as you claim, then they were legally in the right since slavery was also legal.

[stjames1_53]

More like splat.

It's just conventional US government mythology that never looks beneath the surface.



An entirely accurate statement supported by a mountain of facts.

actually.........the only people that really profited from this was big business and banksters.........they made a bunch of money on this, not matter what side they chose. IF the money was being banked on the south instead, the whole thing would have turned out way different. Take a look at a map of the east coast and then say the North wasn't interested in keeping control of those sea ports...big money, really big money. But the north was already bankrolling the industrialization movement. big money was in tech, not cloth or slavery..... but they still needed those sea ports.
big business formed groups, corporations. The South reigned in ignorance living as each individual business, usually family run. Each plantation was its own private business. They would have eventually fallen, but war was faster access to southern resources. Time is money.
The North would have hardly galvanized around the notion of going to war over big business take overs. Nope, they needed a target and a delivery system.
they needed acquisition and a cause.
Now, let me be clear. Slavery was indeed a bane on our society, then. I'll stand by that. What I won't do is take blame. I am not a part of that history and lay no claim to it....
Slavery would have ended eventually. Modernization and advances in technology would have made slavery pretty much outdated.
And once the war was won, big business cast its 'cause' (slavery) aside and moved right in on top of them. The Union representatives treated the blacks worse than some of the plantation owners ever did.
The North really didn't want the blacks around and treated them accordingly.
So, it wasn't just about slavery

[Newpublius]

The South was clearly interested in the preservation of slavery and they say clearly as such in the various Declarations of the Causes of Secession. But they stated other things too. For instance tariffs and the perversion of the Union for the benefit of northern interests. While there was clearly abolitionist tendencies in the north, when push came to shove, the Union was perfectly willing to guarantee slavery, what they weren't willing to do was to lose the South's disproportionate tax contribution while northern businesses would be on the outside looking in on the southern market on an equal footing with foreign competitors. THAT the Union was unable to compromise on and it is for that reason that war actually broke out.

[stjames1_53]

And the point keeps soaring over your head like the sun. If I had to choose between being a slave, or being free but having to deal with people not liking me because of the color of my skin, I will choose to be free every time. Hell, I deal with people not liking me here any day of the week and twice on Sunday and it doesn't phase me one bit. I actually enjoy watching ya'll twist and squirm to try and rationalize your arguments based upon feelings and what great-grandpappy told you.
I tend to be a bit more historic than that. the rest of your diatribe is pure racism against your fellow members........is there really a call for that?

[Safety]

We were talking about the legality of slavery. If the south seceded over slavery, as you claim, then they were legally in the right since slavery was also legal.

Makes zero sense.

[Safety]

I tend to be a bit more historic than that. the rest of your diatribe is pure racism against your fellow members........is there really a call for that?

Wut?

[Ethereal]

Makes zero sense.
It makes perfect sense.

If the north was conspiring to abolish slavery in the south, then the north was conspiring to effectively nullify the constitution.

It would be no different if you and I entered into a contract and, after I discovered your intent to violate the terms and conditions of the contract, I withdrew from it.

Simply put, if the north was violating their contract with the south, then the contract itself was voided, making the south's secession a legal act perfectly consistent with the basic principles of contract law.

[stjames1_53]

It makes perfect sense.

If the north was conspiring to abolish slavery in the south, then the north was conspiring to effectively nullify the constitution.

It would be no different if you and I entered into a contract and, after I discovered your intent to violate the terms and conditions of the contract, I withdrew from it.

Simply put, if the north was violating their contract with the south, then the contract itself was voided, making the south's secession a legal act perfectly consistent with the basic principles of contract law.

yer gonna have to slow it down a bit for him

[Ethereal]

yer gonna have to slow it down a bit for him

It's not really for him, but for any halfway intelligent people who might be reading our exchange.

[Chris]

Maybe there's a minarchist that is able to understand logic.

That's the third time I've posted the words of Davis and Stephens and the third time you've failed to account for them in your narrative. In science, in reason, in anything, the most elegant and powerful narrative is the one that accounts for all the facts.

[Hoosier8]

If that's the case, then the constitution is illegitimate.

Well, that is pretty much a FAIL.

[Chris]

I'd be happy enough finding someone who can understand this post.

Really, why try.

[Dr. Who]

So it's okay that a million slaves got sick and/or died and that many others simply remained on their plantations in a state of de facto slavery? Hey, at least you and other liberals get a warm and fuzzy feeling about the great "liberation" that took place. That's what matters most.
That a supposed million slaves got sick and died is really a testament to the heartless and hostile attitude toward blacks in the south. To wit, if they were not slaves, they were not even worth keeping alive through charity. That's not exactly an endorsement of the society whose rights you are retrospectively endorsing. They sound pretty monstrous to me.

[stjames1_53]

It's not really for him, but for any halfway intelligent people who might be reading our exchange.

I've had several history classes that explored these lines for cause..........it really was illegal, but the 'cause' was bigger than the law

[stjames1_53]

That a supposed million slaves got sick and died is really a testament to the heartless and hostile attitude toward blacks in the south. To wit, if they were not slaves, they were not even worth keeping alive through charity. That's not exactly an endorsement of the society whose rights you are retrospectively endorsing. They sound pretty monstrous to me.

The North's treatment wasn't much better..........

[Mister D]

That a supposed million slaves got sick and died is really a testament to the heartless and hostile attitude toward blacks in the south. To wit, if they were not slaves, they were not even worth keeping alive through charity. That's not exactly an endorsement of the society whose rights you are retrospectively endorsing. They sound pretty monstrous to me.

They might but didn't you just get done telling us morality is relative? The next time you feel compelled to do that please stop and reflect on the fact that virtually no one lives as if that contention was true...including you.

[Ethereal]

Well, that is pretty much a FAIL.
Why?

[Chris]

If it walks like a duck.....

There's no need for me to say anything about how morally wrong or right it may be, it has been deemed illegal. Take that frustration you are attempting to project on me and turn it into something useful, like gardening or drinking.


And thus you admit you have no moral compass by which to argue for justice. It's just legal. Which, by the way, justifying law by law is fallaciously circular. It's also religious in a simplistic sense, as it's no more than a command theory of morality. All in all it leaves you no moral argument by which to condemn slavery or even racism.

That's sad, especially inasmuch as that all you go on and on and on about.

[Mister D]

That a supposed million slaves got sick and died is really a testament to the heartless and hostile attitude toward blacks in the south. To wit, if they were not slaves, they were not even worth keeping alive through charity. That's not exactly an endorsement of the society whose rights you are retrospectively endorsing. They sound pretty monstrous to me.
Oh, and the south was devastated and impoverished by the war.

[Ethereal]

That a supposed million slaves got sick and died is really a testament to the heartless and hostile attitude toward blacks in the south.

No, it's a testament to the complete lack of a coherent or viable plan with regards to emancipation.

Put simply, the north ravaged the south, abolished slavery in the midst of that chaos, and then just left millions of slaves to fend for themselves with no plan to help them.


To wit, if they were not slaves, they were not even worth keeping alive through charity.

You realize the south was devastated, right? And that the northern soldiery routinely pillaged supplies that were meant for master and slave alike?


That's not exactly an endorsement of the society whose rights you are retrospectively endorsing. They sound pretty monstrous to me.

That's probably because you possess a wildly inaccurate view of the historical and economic circumstances surrounding the war.

[Chris]

But it was deemed legal when the south seceded. So if what you say is true, that the south seceded over slavery, then they were 100% legally in the right, which negates your entire argument.


Deemed legal by whom? That means the civil war was just a myth like the moon landing?


By the US government for one. :laugh:


Where did the US government deem the south's secession "legal"? Need some extra time to google?



Good Lord, can't you maintain a coherent argument. The "it" the Eth referred to is slavery. The US Government from the Constitution on deemed it legal. And according to your legal positivism, avoiding all morality, its being legal justified its being legal.

[Ethereal]

Every western country except the USA abolished slavery peacefully. That's because the northern political class had no real interest in abolishing slavery. It was merely an afterthought or a propaganda tool.

[Chris]

Many people have difficulty comprehending your "logic".


There really is none. Not a pea under the 20 feather-beds.

[Chris]

The South was clearly interested in the preservation of slavery and they say clearly as such in the various Declarations of the Causes of Secession. But they stated other things too. For instance tariffs and the perversion of the Union for the benefit of northern interests. While there was clearly abolitionist tendencies in the north, when push came to shove, the Union was perfectly willing to guarantee slavery, what they weren't willing to do was to lose the South's disproportionate tax contribution while northern businesses would be on the outside looking in on the southern market on an equal footing with foreign competitors. THAT the Union was unable to compromise on and it is for that reason that war actually broke out.


After the war, VP Stephens who once spoke about it in terms of slavery, declared in A Constitutional View of the Late War between the States, "It was a strife between the principles of Federation, on the one side, and Centralism, or Consolidation, on the other." Dasis in The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government wrote they'd "fought for the maintenance of their State governments in all their reserved rights and powers."

A good historian is need to reconcile all the different statements. Maybe start with the context of each statement.

[Chris]

That a supposed million slaves got sick and died is really a testament to the heartless and hostile attitude toward blacks in the south. To wit, if they were not slaves, they were not even worth keeping alive through charity. That's not exactly an endorsement of the society whose rights you are retrospectively endorsing. They sound pretty monstrous to me.

Ignoring the identity politics there, you do realize that during the war escaped and freed blacks were kept by the North in camps where they actually thrived, setting up businesses and churches and protection and etc. As the war wound down though, the North broke the communities up and chased them off to fend for themselves. And then there's no no good Northern carpetbaggers.... And then the nasty Souther Democrats.... I ignore the oppressor/oppressed argument because you get the historical facts mixed up.

[Crepitus]

Actually, their goal was to dissolve the union with the north. Slavery was merely incidental.

I'm sorry but that is incorrect revisionist history.

[Newpublius]

That a supposed million slaves got sick and died is really a testament to the heartless and hostile attitude toward blacks in the south. To wit, if they were not slaves, they were not even worth keeping alive through charity. That's not exactly an endorsement of the society whose rights you are retrospectively endorsing. They sound pretty monstrous to me.

No its a testament to the horrors of war of course and why refugees wind up dying. The South wasn't in a position to do anything about it because you have to remember that when those slaves were being freed, the South was being conquered.

[Mark III]

This in the Top 5 stupidest OP's I've seen on this site. (And that is rarefied company).

Yes the south broke away to preserve state's rights. Their states demanded the right to own slaves, a right which was enshrined 'forever' in the CSA consitution.

[Dr. Who]

They might but didn't you just get done telling us morality is relative? The next time you feel compelled to do that please stop and reflect on the fact that virtually no one lives as if that contention was true...including you.
As I stated, our morals are generally reflective of the society and culture in which we live. The South has always been considered the bible belt yet the application of their Christian values was rather selective and self-serving. They were obsessed with the pretense of morality, but missed the boat on the actual application. IOW total hypocrisy.

[Ethereal]

I'm sorry but that is incorrect revisionist history.
How so?

[Ethereal]

This in the Top 5 stupidest OP's I've seen on this site. (And that is rarefied company).

Yes the south broke away to preserve state's rights. Their states demanded the right to own slaves, a right which was enshrined 'forever' in the CSA consitution.

Why would they break away to preserve the right to own slaves when there was absolutely no credible threat to that right?

[Ethereal]

As I stated, our morals are generally reflective of the society and culture in which we live. The South has always been considered the bible belt yet the application of their Christian values was rather selective and self-serving. They were obsessed with the pretense of morality, but missed the boat on the actual application. IOW total hypocrisy.

As opposed to the north, who were so wonderful and caring. Just ask the native Americans, for example.

[Ethereal]

As I stated, our morals are generally reflective of the society and culture in which we live. The South has always been considered the bible belt yet the application of their Christian values was rather selective and self-serving. They were obsessed with the pretense of morality, but missed the boat on the actual application. IOW total hypocrisy.

The Bible endorsed slavery. It was one of the arguments southerners used in defense of slavery. You seem to forget that chattel slavery was practiced for like 99% of recorded history.

[Dr. Who]

As opposed to the north, who were so wonderful and caring. Just ask the native Americans, for example.
A different discussion, but one that we should have. Still, I don`t believe that the north has statues dedicated to the slaughter of native Americans. I could be wrong.

[Dr. Who]

The Bible endorsed slavery. It was one of the arguments southerners used in defense of slavery. You seem to forget that chattel slavery was practiced for like 99% of recorded history.
By the 1860's chattel slavery was no longer tolerated among civilized nations regardless of its historical acceptability.

[Mark III]

Why would they break away to preserve the right to own slaves when there was absolutely no credible threat to that right?

The Republican Party was growing in influence and was anti-slavery. As more states came into the union, pressure was growing to make them anti-slave. In that event sooner or later the slave states would be outvoted in Congress and at the mercy of the anti-slave states. It was only a matter of time.

Secession was put in motion as soon as Lincoln was elected president. Why was that if there was no threat to slavery? The Republican Party and Lincoln were antislavery and everyone in the south knew it. Read some newspaper materials from the period.

[Crepitus]

How so?

Please refer to my post above.

[stjames1_53]

Please refer to my post above.

that post above ain't your post.............

[Crepitus]

that post above ain't your post.............

Which is why I specified My post above, not some other guy's.

[Mister D]

As I stated, our morals are generally reflective of the society and culture in which we live. The South has always been considered the bible belt yet the application of their Christian values was rather selective and self-serving. They were obsessed with the pretense of morality, but missed the boat on the actual application. IOW total hypocrisy.
That's nice but on what basis do you condemn the south? If morality is relative then all cultures are equal in that respect. What you'll find is that these relativistic arguments are just sterile academic exercises that no one really lives by and no one actually believes...including you. Please, just answer the question.

[Mister D]

By the 1860's chattel slavery was no longer tolerated among civilized nations regardless of its historical acceptability.
It's almost like they thought it was morally wrong but that's just silly, isn't it? After all morality is relative.

[Safety]

And thus you admit you have no moral compass by which to argue for justice. It's just legal. Which, by the way, justifying law by law is fallaciously circular. It's also religious in a simplistic sense, as it's no more than a command theory of morality. All in all it leaves you no moral argument by which to condemn slavery or even racism.

That's sad, especially inasmuch as that all you go on and on and on about.

No, it just does no good to argue moral compasses, when it is subjective at best, and a waste of effort at worst. I don't need to condemn racism, I want it to be seen for what it is and let others decide for themselves if that is something they want to be associated with.

[Safety]

Good Lord, can't you maintain a coherent argument. The "it" the Eth referred to is slavery. The US Government from the Constitution on deemed it legal. And according to your legal positivism, avoiding all morality, its being legal justified its being legal.

That's because you choose to hang on to a simplistic argument and attribute it as being some sort of gotcha moment. If "eth" was talking about slavery being legal therefore the secession was legal, is a stupid argument, therefore I thought he was speaking only about the states leaving as being legal. Thus my response to him.


The presidential election of 1860 had resulted in the selection of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, as president of the United States. Lincoln won because of an overwhelming electoral college vote from the Northern states. Not a single Southern slave state voted for him. Lincoln and his Republican party were pledged only to stop the expansion of slavery. Although they promised to protect slavery where it existed, white Southerners were not persuaded. The election results demonstrated that the South was increasingly a minority region within the nation. Soon Northerners and slavery's opponents might accumulate the voting power to overturn the institution, no matter what white Southerners might desire.


The extent of slave escapes in the South and the burden it placed upon the Union presented a major dilemma for President Lincoln. From the moment the conflict began at Fort Sumter, Lincoln's foremost goals had been to preserve the Union, to bring the war to an end with a minimum of bloodshed, and to avoid lingering animosity between Northern and Southern whites. If that could best be achieved by preserving slavery, he said, he would do so; if it could be achieved by freeing every slave, he would do that instead. Lincoln despised slavery, but he, like Thomas Jefferson and many others before him, doubted that blacks and whites could ever live in America in a condition of equality.


...The determination with which blacks seized freedom shocked whites, both North and South. In an unanticipated and unplanned war, the African Americans behavior may have been the element for which both sides were least prepared. In the end, black slaves played a major role in bringing down the Confederacy. They had demonstrated that they wanted freedom and were prepared to fight for its realization.
The fourth question that whites had posed about the slaves--Would they know what to do with their freedom if they got it?"--would be more candidly phrased--"Would white America let blacks truly exercise their freedom?" That question remains unresolved at the end of the twentieth century. But the limitations that crippled black freedom after Reconstruction did not discourage many African Americans who had been slaves. As one black Union veteran said after the war, "In slavery, I had no worriment In freedom lie got a family and a little farm. All that causes me worriment........But I takes the FREEDOM!"

http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.html

[stjames1_53]

Which is why I specified My post above, not some other guy's.

"...my post above.." it still ani't yer post..................why don't you give a link instead................

[OddFellow]

So I guess my college professors were idiots for teaching the Civil War was about ending slavery. Guys with PhD's who are supposed experts about history must of been totally wrong. All my teachers in school must of been clueless. All the movies about the Civil War and books written must of been lies...

[stjames1_53]

So I guess my college professors were idiots for teaching the Civil War was about ending slavery. Guys with PhD's who are supposed experts about history must of been totally wrong. All my teachers in school must of been clueless. All the movies about the Civil War and books written must of been lies...

it was more complicated than that. IF the North had really been so kind and loving, why did they herd them into ghettos? Make them do the most foul work and pay so little?
Ever take a close look at the shoreline of the east coast? Big business wanted those ports secured. All that coast........
As soon as the Civil War ended, Big Business baled on their cause to free the slave. They did no such thing. The 'revenoors' and carpetbaggers treated some of the blacks worse than the owners ever did.
You sure wouldn't have gone to war with the south if Big Business had told you what they were really after, would you?
The only winner in any war, regardless, is the bank.

[Safety]

So I guess my college professors were idiots for teaching the Civil War was about ending slavery. Guys with PhD's who are supposed experts about history must of been totally wrong. All my teachers in school must of been clueless. All the movies about the Civil War and books written must of been lies...

No, it is only fake news to those that want to support the most racist moment in our nation's history. Every time the discussion comes up, you will see the double speak, shuck and jive, semantics, and attempts to deflect to some other non-relevant subject, all in order to try and justify the confederacy legitimacy and erase the notion that it was based solely on white supremacy. I mean, it's literally on the same scale as someone arguing that nazis didn't target jews.

[Captdon]

adding to it.The Secession Resolutions and the Causes are available on the net. They were written by, voted for and signed by the men who tried to secede. I can't see any possibility they were conning themselves or anyone else.
I can see why no one would like to admit that their great-grandaddy fought for the right to own someone but there it is.

The Union didn't fight to end slavery. They didn't care for the most part. They fought to save the union. Lincoln freed the slaves in areas under rebel control as a war measure.

When the war was close to ending the Us passed the 13th Amendment. Some say it was to do the right thing. Maybe that's true. Maybe it was revenge.