Was the civil war primarily over slavery?

[Captain Obvious]

Vote

Discuss

Poll is NOT PUBLIC

[texan]

Educate me.

I used to say no to this question. But the more I have debated it the more and more slavery took the lead. I would like to be made more clear. let me know after comments votes and comments here. There was certainly more involved. I can't tell if history has been rewritten. I will say that it was pretty big because of Abe's speeches.

[Peter1469]

Had the US never allowed slavery, it is unknown whether the Civil War would have occurred. I think that it certainly wouldn't have started in the 1860s, and I am not sure what the catalyst would have been. The slow erosion of states' rights - perhaps.

But we did have slavery, and the South was becoming non-relevant in the Senate and losing power in the House as new territories were becoming free states.

The status of states' rights is much more dismal today than in the mid 1800s, yet it is very unlikely that there will be a civil war today.

[Captdon]

All you have to do is read the Secession Resolution and Causes. The people who dreamed the secession up stated exactly why they wanted to secede. It doesn't matter what we think. They came up with it. they talked about it, they voted on it and they started a war about it.

The documents are online and easy to find. Only the apologists refuse to read them. They must think their greta-great grandaddies LIED.

[stjames1_53]

while it was part of the issue, Big Business wanted those ports


all of that oceanfront property...............

[Perianne]

The north has been pushing us around ever since the formation of the United States.

Lincoln was the biggest problem as he was a tyrant. There is a reason Obama admired Lincoln.

[Cthulhu]

Vote

Discuss

Poll is NOT PUBLIC

No. Primarily over debt.

But freeing slaves sounds much more noble.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Mark III]

Polls like this accurately convey how much ignorance abounds at this site.

Educate your ignorant selves. Google the "secession commissioners' . They were prominent men from the states who had already seceded who were sent to the border states to try and convince them to secede also. The "rationale" they offered was largely connected to the need to protect slavery from norther interference. As someone else mentioned, there is also the documents of secession as proclaimed by the individual confederate states who had to declare in their state legislatures what the reason were they were leaving the union. The great majority of their reasoning amounts to a defense of slavery.

This question in the OP is not even a serious question.

[Mark III]

"The commissioners were a group of men who were widely unknown and therefore, could likely relate to the common people of the other Southern states (Dew, 19). However, these men had an incredible aptitude for speaking, which made them valuable in persuading undecided states to secede (Dew 19). Often, the commissioners were born in the state which they were sent to represent, strengthening their position as a Southern figure (Dew, 19).

These commissioners spread the message of secession because of a few key reasons. They believed that the election of Abraham Lincoln was essentially “an open declaration of war” (Dew, 54), in that he would emancipate the south of slavery. This would destroy the racial structure of the South, degrade the white population, and destroy their economic prosperity (Dew, 32). It is true that states rights were a factor in secession, but the South focused on the states’ right to continue slavery (Dew, 11). These two ideals are so interconnected that it is impossible to separate them when discussing causes of secession.

First and foremost, the Commissioners were concerned with the collapse of the racial structure of the south. With the emancipation of slavery would come the equality of both white and black men, an ideal that completely went against the Southern view that white men were naturally superior (Dew, 55). The South believed in this principle so strongly that the vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, went so far as to say the founding fathers were wrong in saying the enslavement of Africans was morally wrong (Dew, 14). If the South were to remain part of the union, they believed they would face not only racial equality, but race war and racial amalgamation (Dew, 78-79). These possibilities strongly go against the South’s belief that their “fathers had made this government for the white man” as described by William Harris, a commissioner from Mississippi (Dew 85). Harris also went as far to say that the South would rather “see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjugated to the degradation of civil, political, and social equality with the $#@! race” (Dew, 89)."

http://cobrienhistoryportfolio.umwbl...for-secession/

[Captain Obvious]

Polls like this accurately convey how much ignorance abounds at this site.

Educate your ignorant selves. Google the "secession commissioners' . They were prominent men from the states who had already seceded who were sent to the border states to try and convince them to secede also. The "rationale" they offered was largely connected to the need to protect slavery from norther interference. As someone else mentioned, there is also the documents of secession as proclaimed by the individual confederate states who had to declare in their state legislatures what the reason were they were leaving the union. The great majority of their reasoning amounts to a defense of slavery.

This question in the OP is not even a serious question.

Thanks for your opinion.

Have a tissue and don't forget to vote.