User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: What was Civil War really about ???

  1. #1
    Points: 2,531, Level: 11
    Level completed: 71%, Points required for next Level: 119
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    7 days registered1000 Experience Points
    dgold44's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    196
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    564
    Points
    2,531
    Level
    11
    Thanks Given
    70
    Thanked 186x in 148 Posts
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    What was Civil War really about ???

    Seems to be huge disagreements

    My understanding : it was not about freeing the blacks . Lincoln never wanted to deal with slavery . He did not love it but thought it would disappear.

    The South after the Mexican War was extremely paranoid that Lincoln was going to free slaves and ruin their economy . He was not !!!

    The North did not want to lose the rich and valuable agriculture of the South

    War was about paranoia and $$$$
    Many of the dead were young Irish kids .

    Ending slavery was a byproduct and the only good thing to result

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to dgold44 For This Useful Post:

    nathanbforrest45 (06-06-2020)

  3. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 236,678, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 91.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    399715
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    94,678
    Points
    236,678
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    19,003
    Thanked 36,658x in 25,901 Posts
    Mentioned
    947 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Russia teach you well!
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  4. #3
    Points: 63,679, Level: 61
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 771
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    nathanbforrest45's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    73213
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    In a house on a hill
    Posts
    23,937
    Points
    63,679
    Level
    61
    Thanks Given
    5,299
    Thanked 11,512x in 7,993 Posts
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think as the Cliff Notes version this is fairly close to the truth. I think its a bit less simple as that but basically this was the gist of the disagreement. Had little to do with the North wanting to free the slaves. Everything to do with (1) not giving slaves states more power in the federal government. Slave states could count their slaves in their population thereby acquiring more Representatives in Congress then they were really entitled to. The "Free States" wanted to keep that to a minimum. The Northern States enacted tariffs on European goods that drove up the cost of the supplies the South needed and also reduced the ability of the South to sell its cotton in European markets. The North needed the South's food supplies as they supplied about 70% of all the agricultural goods to the North. If the South seceded from the Union those supplies may be cut off. Freeing the slaves had little to actually do with "The War of Northern Aggression" or as its misnamed "The American Civil War" Lincoln only issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a means of further disrupting the economy of the states in rebellion. It should be further noted that several states did not enter the Confederacy until after Lincoln had dispatched Federal Troops into what they saw as sovereign states and therefore was a direct attack on their homelands.

    Prior to the war people saw themselves as citizens of the states in which they resided, they were North Carolinian's or Virginians, or Ohoins, or New Yorker's, much like the members of the European Union see themselves as Germans or Spaniards or Italians today
    Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  5. #4
    Original Ranter
    Points: 580,751, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    437933
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    172,954
    Points
    580,751
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    104,740
    Thanked 88,915x in 59,549 Posts
    Mentioned
    2290 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45 View Post
    I think as the Cliff Notes version this is fairly close to the truth. I think its a bit less simple as that but basically this was the gist of the disagreement. Had little to do with the North wanting to free the slaves. Everything to do with (1) not giving slaves states more power in the federal government. Slave states could count their slaves in their population thereby acquiring more Representatives in Congress then they were really entitled to. The "Free States" wanted to keep that to a minimum. The Northern States enacted tariffs on European goods that drove up the cost of the supplies the South needed and also reduced the ability of the South to sell its cotton in European markets. The North needed the South's food supplies as they supplied about 70% of all the agricultural goods to the North. If the South seceded from the Union those supplies may be cut off. Freeing the slaves had little to actually do with "The War of Northern Aggression" or as its misnamed "The American Civil War" Lincoln only issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a means of further disrupting the economy of the states in rebellion. It should be further noted that several states did not enter the Confederacy until after Lincoln had dispatched Federal Troops into what they saw as sovereign states and therefore was a direct attack on their homelands.

    Prior to the war people saw themselves as citizens of the states in which they resided, they were North Carolinian's or Virginians, or Ohoins, or New Yorker's, much like the members of the European Union see themselves as Germans or Spaniards or Italians today
    In addition to this, states that were being added to the nation were to be free states. The South saw that as unacceptable. Each new state would come with two senators and at least one representative. So the hand writing was on the wall- the South would be a permanent minority in Congress.

    This is a larger example of our current DC debate. The hard left wants the Maryland portion of DC to become its own state thus ensuring two radical hard left senators and one representative - with today's Senate make up the harm to the nation is similar to what the South saw prior to the Civil War.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    nathanbforrest45 (06-08-2020),Perianne (06-07-2020)

  7. #5
    Points: 58,278, Level: 58
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 72
    Overall activity: 5.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocial
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    8795
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    27,137
    Points
    58,278
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    46,078
    Thanked 8,799x in 7,075 Posts
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dgold44 View Post
    Seems to be huge disagreements

    My understanding : it was not about freeing the blacks . Lincoln never wanted to deal with slavery . He did not love it but thought it would disappear.

    The South after the Mexican War was extremely paranoid that Lincoln was going to free slaves and ruin their economy . He was not !!!

    The North did not want to lose the rich and valuable agriculture of the South

    War was about paranoia and $$$$
    Many of the dead were young Irish kids .

    Ending slavery was a byproduct and the only good thing to result
    The south succeeded because of slavery and only for that. Read the Succession Resolutions. It says it in plain English.

    No one said the North fought to free slaves. They fought to preserve the Union.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our freedom and our society and our morals.

  8. #6
    Points: 58,278, Level: 58
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 72
    Overall activity: 5.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocial
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    8795
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    27,137
    Points
    58,278
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    46,078
    Thanked 8,799x in 7,075 Posts
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    In addition to this, states that were being added to the nation were to be free states. The South saw that as unacceptable. Each new state would come with two senators and at least one representative. So the hand writing was on the wall- the South would be a permanent minority in Congress.

    This is a larger example of our current DC debate. The hard left wants the Maryland portion of DC to become its own state thus ensuring two radical hard left senators and one representative - with today's Senate make up the harm to the nation is similar to what the South saw prior to the Civil War.
    Read the Missouri Compromise. What you wrote was wrong.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our freedom and our society and our morals.

  9. #7
    Points: 31,200, Level: 43
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 1,250
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience Points
    Perianne's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    9751
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5,343
    Points
    31,200
    Level
    43
    Thanks Given
    932
    Thanked 918x in 535 Posts
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    The south succeeded because of slavery and only for that. Read the Succession Resolutions. It says it in plain English.

    No one said the North fought to free slaves. They fought to preserve the Union.
    The South had the right to secede, but the northern bustards wanted the South to play by the north's rules, whether the South liked it or not. Sorta like Antifa?

  10. #8
    Original Ranter
    Points: 580,751, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    437933
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    172,954
    Points
    580,751
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    104,740
    Thanked 88,915x in 59,549 Posts
    Mentioned
    2290 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    Read the Missouri Compromise. What you wrote was wrong.
    The Missouri Compromise only allowed slavery in the Missouri and Arkansas territory. And it was effectively repealed in 1854 with the Kansas Nebraska Act.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  11. #9
    Points: 63,679, Level: 61
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 771
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    nathanbforrest45's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    73213
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    In a house on a hill
    Posts
    23,937
    Points
    63,679
    Level
    61
    Thanks Given
    5,299
    Thanked 11,512x in 7,993 Posts
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    The south succeeded because of slavery and only for that. Read the Succession Resolutions. It says it in plain English.

    No one said the North fought to free slaves. They fought to preserve the Union.
    Two things and one you were advised of before. Its SECEDED, not succeeded. Secondly, the narrative has been that the North went to war against the South in order to free the slaves. You even allude to that in the first part of you above referenced post. The slavery issue was but a small part of the overall debate between the industrial North and agricultural South. Slavery was purely an economic issue, it would be like today if AOC were to actually get laws passed outlawing the use of gas powered farm implements.
    Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  12. #10
    Points: 5,233, Level: 17
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 517
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Rebel's Avatar Junior Member
    Karma
    98
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington, D.C
    Posts
    68
    Points
    5,233
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    21
    Thanked 43x in 29 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Civil War was about many things but in my experience if you dare tell people this they tend to get irrational and angry. At it's heart was slavery. This was made apparent in many of the secession documents of many of the states that made up the Confederacy. It was also about state rights, representation in the national legislature, and the election of a President who didn't represent Southern interests in anyway. Most of the people who fought in the Civil War did not care about slavery and could not afford a slave even if they did. To the common people, the war was about forming a new nation that would empower the South. To the elites, the war was about the economy and the slaves that enabled many of the plantations to function. The war had different meanings to different peoples.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Rebel For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (06-16-2020)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO