What was Civil War really about ???

[dgold44]

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

[Mister D]

Russia teach you well!

[nathanbforrest45]

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

[Peter1469]

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.

[Captdon]

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.

[Captdon]

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.

[Perianne]

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?

[Peter1469]

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.

[nathanbforrest45]

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.

[Rebel]

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.