Was the American civil war our first 'false flag'

So, here's the thing. The civil war wasn't really about slavery. That's just the real truth of the matter. Lincoln had said he didn't really care about slavery one way or the other, he just wanted to preserve the union. Now, some would say this was just the beginning of what would become an ever-increasing trend towards expansion of the power and scope of the federal government. Slavery is of course wrong. On the other hand, isn't that just the way 'they' always operate? You capitalize on real crises to further an agenda you already have. So, slavery was really just the issue that the north used for a sort of moralistic storyline behind the war, rather than being the actual motivation for the war. Given that they wanted to solidify the centralization of power with the federal government, and they had the south, which was an economy with which slavery played a significant part, wanting to secede. Thus it became in issue to latch onto for the storyline of why you are doing this war, the power becomes truly centralized in the federal government, allowing for a perpetual increase to the scope and power of that government. Yes, we ended slavery. And that was great. But, that wasn't really what it was all about.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Sorry I couldn't resist.

Just to highlight one important fact here again that tends to be browsed over. The argument in this thread is that the institution of slavery wasn't a significant enough issue to have sparked the civil war. This is why the OP argued that only 1% of the US population consisted of slaveholders. He and so many others here conveniently forget that the argument is actually whether the institution of slavery was an important enough issue to the South to secede for. The fact is, there were 3.1 million slaves in the south back then and 390,000 slave holders. That's 38% of the population in South whom consisted of slaveholders and slaves. That's close to 40% of the population in the Confederacy.



a reply to: Semicollegiate

as did everyone who bought Southern products

Buying a product for consumption isn't comparable to the business owner earning money off it. Apples and oranges.

The North also profited greatly from slavery.

Where's your stats? They may have profited but how much more than the South? That's not to say the North went to war to rid of slavery in the first place. The South seceded to preserve it out of fear the North would.

The North shipped slaves in, and sold them.

The slave trade in the United States ended in 1807 with the Slave Trade Act 1807 so it's not relevant to the civil war. Now one could argue there were still slaves smuggled into the US following that act? But not at the same levels experienced towards the end or post 18th century.

Slavery was an institution that was phased out peacefully everywhere else in the world.

And it would've been peacefully phased out in the South eventually had they not seceded (probably well towards the end of the 19th century). They did however secede to preserve it:

Slavery is the first thing to be mentioned in the South Carolina declaration of immediate causes to secession in December 24, 1860. Slavery is mentioned 6 times, tariffs are not mentioned at all, although taxes are, in relation to slavery that is: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Mississippi declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Texas declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

There's more from other states, declarations of grievances:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

You want to know their reasoning for secession? Go to the declaration of grievances. Simple.

In 1860, Lincoln was elected with a Republican plurality in the Senate and the Morrill Tariff had already passed the House. Enough Senators could be bought, or maybe brought into the new tariff boosted industrial power base, to pass the Morrill Tariff.

So just to clarify here. Are you saying had the South not seceded and with the presence of Southern representation in congress, they still would not have had enough to stop the Morrill Tariff from passing? It's interesting you think the Republicans would've 'bought off' representatives at the time as you were arguing before that every southern representative voted against the tariff since the start.

I'd like you to clarify again for me so we're clear here. You argue there were not enough representatives in congress at the time to stop the Morrill Tariff? And can you also link to the Morill Tariff being touted as the main cause that sparked secession at that time by government officials. Thanks.

Lincoln pushed troops into Fort Sumter, the tariff collector of South Carolina's largest port

Where's your evidence that Fort Sumter was a Tariff collector? I've heard this one before.

From the South's point of view, the tariff then, like Obama Care now (the vote buyers have been pushing it since the 1960's), was just a matter of time. The tariff was for the "greater good" of the Union. And the tariff was lawful.

The future western states would probably not be slave states because either they were too dry for agriculture, like New Mexico, or the white settlers didn't want to compete with slave labor as in Kansas and Nebraska. The Southern slave states would have permanently lost their majority in the Senate at some future time.

The encroachments against slavery were not lawful in 1860, without an amendment to the constitution. As countries, at the International level, the Confederacy and its autonomous states would not want to be seen as outlaws, and secession was lawful, or else the 9th and 10th Amendments have no meaning.

Secession was also not aggressive. The North started and maintained the war until the South was ruined and occupied.

The North was the aggressor nation, it was a war of choice.

So who chose to invade and conquer? A plurality President? A population that could not tolerate slavery one more split second?

We don't know for sure, so it was a false flag in some sense.

What a pile of nonsense. The twisting of logic you utilize to try and blame the North for the South refusing to stop owning other human beings is disgusting. The Civil War was not a false flag. It was a war of ideals. The largest? The Southern ideal that owning black people was ok.

The North made slavery and every one in the economy got cheaper stuff because of slavery. Slavery was going to be phased out by technology.

The largest ideal was for or against a Union.

So in your history...all of the fierce national debate centered on slavery for the decades leading up to the civil war is fictionalized and the country as a whole in 1860 had the foresight to predict a yet to be invented technological revolution in farming?

Slavery WAS the issue...Whether the morality of slavery or the immoral economic advantage it afforded the south or the Union prohibiting it's spread to the new terrortories..it all come back to slavery, and yes, Lincoln would have tolerated and contained slavery to the south if it could have preserved the union, but the south wanted a thoroughly pro-slavery federal government representing them... expanding slavery Westward and taking the majority of the new states or seceding from the union and establishing independence. You can't slice this any which way that does not return to slavery.

originally posted by: TheJourney
So, here's the thing. The civil war wasn't really about slavery. That's just the real truth of the matter. Lincoln had said he didn't really care about slavery one way or the other,

Yah...but he said the precise opposite...consistently...his whole career..

He prioritized preserving the union over slavery, but was strictly opposed to slavery his entire career, as were the Republican Party.

Why not ask the Southern States what the war was about?

South Carolina's Declaration of Secession

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

www.civil-war.net...

Mississippi's declaration of independence

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.

www.civil-war.net...

Texas Declaration of Secession

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slaveholding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

www.civil-war.net...

Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

avalon.law.yale.edu...

originally posted by: Indigo5

I noticed, after reading your last link, that you didn't quote another rather salient point in the Georgia Articles of Secession:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

Complaints of unfair taxation, tariffs, and business practices. Complaints of lack of free trade and favoritism to northern industrialists.

Certainly, I'm not suggesting that slavery was not an issue or not the primary issue, just pointing out that the history and situation was a lot more complex than a soundbite.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

I noticed, after reading your last link, that you didn't quote another rather salient point in the Georgia Articles of Secession:

Right...Because posting the entire Letters of secession would be pages and pages of posts..

Did they complain about other things, sure...but always as a secondary issue to slavery...

As for Georgia's Letter of Secession...

THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE...

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

I take them at their word about what their beef was..

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

Certainly, I'm not suggesting that slavery was not an issue or not the primary issue, just pointing out that the history and situation was a lot more complex than a soundbite.

Absolutely complex...but at the center of those complexities, political, economic and moral was without question, the institution of slavery, but their are folks here claiming that it simply WAS NOT about slavery...and that is just false.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

I noticed, after reading your last link, that you didn't quote another rather salient point in the Georgia Articles of Secession:

Right...Because posting the entire Letters of secession would pages and pages of posts..

Did they complain about other things, sure...but always as a secondary issue to slavery...

As for Georgia's Letter of Secession...

THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE...

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

I take them at their word about what their beef was..

If one wants to understand history, one must try to understand it as a whole, not stop reading at the first sentence. To do so is to give history short shrift and we really don't want to repeat such a history so we should learn from it.

Certainly slavery was the primary issue for many--especially the ruling class who depended on it for their wealth--however, we can see that the average individual may have been motivated by other things and the economic issues, especially by the depression of the 1850's--something I'm sure you recall learning in history class, yes?

I see you edited your post after I hit send, so I'll have to modify my point. Certainly I can't argue against slavery being the issue it was.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

I noticed, after reading your last link, that you didn't quote another rather salient point in the Georgia Articles of Secession:

Right...Because posting the entire Letters of secession would pages and pages of posts..

Did they complain about other things, sure...but always as a secondary issue to slavery...

As for Georgia's Letter of Secession...

THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE...

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

I take them at their word about what their beef was..

If one wants to understand history, one must try to understand it as a whole, not stop reading at the first sentence. To do so is to give history short shrift and we really don't want to repeat such a history so we should learn from it.

Certainly slavery was the primary issue for many--especially the ruling class who depended on it for their wealth--however, we can see that the average individual may have been motivated by other things and the economic issues, especially by the depression of the 1850's--something I'm sure you recall learning in history class, yes?

I see you edited your post after I hit send, so I'll have to modify my point. Certainly I can't argue against slavery being the issue it was.

The crash of 1857?

The South was much less hard-hit than other regions because of the stability of the cotton market.

www.civilwar.com...

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

I noticed, after reading your last link, that you didn't quote another rather salient point in the Georgia Articles of Secession:

Right...Because posting the entire Letters of secession would pages and pages of posts..

Did they complain about other things, sure...but always as a secondary issue to slavery...

As for Georgia's Letter of Secession...

THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE...

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

I take them at their word about what their beef was..

If one wants to understand history, one must try to understand it as a whole, not stop reading at the first sentence. To do so is to give history short shrift and we really don't want to repeat such a history so we should learn from it.

Certainly slavery was the primary issue for many--especially the ruling class who depended on it for their wealth--however, we can see that the average individual may have been motivated by other things and the economic issues, especially by the depression of the 1850's--something I'm sure you recall learning in history class, yes?

I see you edited your post after I hit send, so I'll have to modify my point. Certainly I can't argue against slavery being the issue it was.

The crash of 1857?

The South was much less hard-hit than other regions because of the stability of the cotton market.

www.civilwar.com...

I'm sorry, but this whole thread is lame and it's symbolic of how lazy things have gotten on ATS. You ignore the words of VIRTUALLY EVERY STATE THAT SECEDED and keep trying to make the lame point that The Civil War was somehow a false flag. SO now you claim you know more than the people in each State who actually declared secession and went to war. This kind of garbage drags this whole site down. Instead of going after real potential conspiracies, we're wasting time with threads like this. Gross...

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

I noticed, after reading your last link, that you didn't quote another rather salient point in the Georgia Articles of Secession:

Right...Because posting the entire Letters of secession would pages and pages of posts..

Did they complain about other things, sure...but always as a secondary issue to slavery...

As for Georgia's Letter of Secession...

THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE...

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

I take them at their word about what their beef was..

If one wants to understand history, one must try to understand it as a whole, not stop reading at the first sentence. To do so is to give history short shrift and we really don't want to repeat such a history so we should learn from it.

Certainly slavery was the primary issue for many--especially the ruling class who depended on it for their wealth--however, we can see that the average individual may have been motivated by other things and the economic issues, especially by the depression of the 1850's--something I'm sure you recall learning in history class, yes?

I see you edited your post after I hit send, so I'll have to modify my point. Certainly I can't argue against slavery being the issue it was.

The crash of 1857?

The South was much less hard-hit than other regions because of the stability of the cotton market.

www.civilwar.com...

Not just 1857 but also 1813 and the 1840's. As for 1857, specifically, certainly the South did fare better due to an agrarian based economy rather than an industrial based society which led northern politicians to try to increase taxes and tariffs on southern goods to support the failing northern industries which lead to perceptions of unfair treatment and generalized disgruntlement. The South saw that as a justification of their agrarian economy and pushed for more inclusive roles in the national economy, less tariffs and taxes on their goods, which were rebuffed by northern industrialists who wanted their mills, not British mills to get the raw materiels and this led to a very contentious situation with both sides blaming the other.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Absolutely contributing factors, but of course I would argue it was still centered on slavery.

Slavery is what insulated the south from the crash of 1857, which was the bubble bursting from the gold rush. The South didn't need a Gold Rush, they had slavery.

Yes, the North benefited economically from the Slavery in the south..but the Northern states and Republicans had a slight majority and managed to take the White-House...with a anti-slavery President representing an anti-slavery party.

Lincoln would have "Tolerated" and "Contained" slavery to keep the union, but not let it expand. I suspect he realized the economic contribution the south made to the coffers. But his tolerance ended with letting slavery grow...aka move west or to any new states. He was willing to let slavery die slowly in due course in the south.

At that point the South saw no hope of expanding slavery to the new territories, which would have expanded the South's wealth and political power...see a map of the new territories and what became off limits for southern slavery with Lincoln's election and the Republicans firmly taking power in DC.

Georgia's complaint for example: "and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. "



So the South...was being exploited for it's slavery derived wealth by the federal government, while at the same time not having representation in Federal Government corresponding to their economic contribution...while at the same time being derided and condemned as morally inferior to the North....and they were being contained and forbidden from expanding slavery to the west and all the economic and political gains that expansion would afford the South.

And there is the irony...From the South's perspective ...the south was being used by the Fed Gov for it's economic output while being derided for it's methods and being denied political representation in keeping with their contribution and "contained" in the southern states not able to move to the new territories, denied freedoms to move West with slavery...

The South rebelled because the Fed made them feel exploited, abused and restricted, less freedom and rights than the rest of the country...just like the very slaves the South exploited themselves to arrive in that scenario

The higher powers have a sense of humor on a grand and timeless scale.

All of the above?...rooted still in the institution of slavery..

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: NavyDoc

Absolutely contributing factors, but of course I would argue it was still centered on slavery.

Slavery is what insulated the south from the crash of 1857, which was the bubble bursting from the gold rush. The South didn't need a Gold Rush, they had slavery.

Yes, the North benefited economically from the Slavery in the south..but the Northern states and Republicans had a slight majority and managed to take the White-House...with anti-slavery President representing an anti-slavery party.

At that point the South saw no hope of expanding slavery to the new territories, which would have expanded the South's wealth and political power...see a map of the new territories and what became off limits for southern slavery with the Republicans firmly taking power in DC.

Georgia's complaint for example: "and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. "

So the South...was being exploited for it's slavery derived wealth by the federal government, while at the same time not having representation in Federal Government corresponding to their economic contribution...while at the same time being derided and condemned as morally inferior to the North....and they were being contained and forbidden from expanding slavery to the west and all the economic and political gains that expansion would afford the South.

And there is the irony...From the South's perspective ...the south was being used by the Fed Gov for it's economic output while being derided for it's methods and being denied political representation in keeping with their contribution and "contained" in the southern states not able to move to the new territories, denied freedoms to move West with slavery...

The South rebelled because the Fed made them feel exploited, abused and restricted, less freedom and rights than the rest of the country...just like the very slaves the South exploited themselves to arrive in that scenario

The higher powers have a sense of humor on a grand and timeless scale.

All of the above?...rooted still in the institution of slavery..

Certainly a lot of irony, such as the Northern industrialists use of slave picked cotton to use in their mills.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: NavyDoc

Absolutely contributing factors, but of course I would argue it was still centered on slavery.

Slavery is what insulated the south from the crash of 1857, which was the bubble bursting from the gold rush. The South didn't need a Gold Rush, they had slavery.

Yes, the North benefited economically from the Slavery in the south..but the Northern states and Republicans had a slight majority and managed to take the White-House...with anti-slavery President representing an anti-slavery party.

At that point the South saw no hope of expanding slavery to the new territories, which would have expanded the South's wealth and political power...see a map of the new territories and what became off limits for southern slavery with the Republicans firmly taking power in DC.

Georgia's complaint for example: "and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. "

So the South...was being exploited for it's slavery derived wealth by the federal government, while at the same time not having representation in Federal Government corresponding to their economic contribution...while at the same time being derided and condemned as morally inferior to the North....and they were being contained and forbidden from expanding slavery to the west and all the economic and political gains that expansion would afford the South.

And there is the irony...From the South's perspective ...the south was being used by the Fed Gov for it's economic output while being derided for it's methods and being denied political representation in keeping with their contribution and "contained" in the southern states not able to move to the new territories, denied freedoms to move West with slavery...

The South rebelled because the Fed made them feel exploited, abused and restricted, less freedom and rights than the rest of the country...just like the very slaves the South exploited themselves to arrive in that scenario

The higher powers have a sense of humor on a grand and timeless scale.

All of the above?...rooted still in the institution of slavery..

Certainly a lot of irony, such as the Northern industrialists use of slave picked cotton to use in their mills.

Yep...and in the end, when painfully forced to choose, at great cost Lincoln killed the Golden Goose rather than let the disease spread. He spoke often about how he would have avoided doing so as long as the Goose would abide by quarantine until the disease ran it's course. The Goose did not abide as it did not recognize itself as being diseased.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: NavyDoc

Absolutely contributing factors, but of course I would argue it was still centered on slavery.

Slavery is what insulated the south from the crash of 1857, which was the bubble bursting from the gold rush. The South didn't need a Gold Rush, they had slavery.

Yes, the North benefited economically from the Slavery in the south..but the Northern states and Republicans had a slight majority and managed to take the White-House...with anti-slavery President representing an anti-slavery party.

At that point the South saw no hope of expanding slavery to the new territories, which would have expanded the South's wealth and political power...see a map of the new territories and what became off limits for southern slavery with the Republicans firmly taking power in DC.

Georgia's complaint for example: "and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. "

So the South...was being exploited for it's slavery derived wealth by the federal government, while at the same time not having representation in Federal Government corresponding to their economic contribution...while at the same time being derided and condemned as morally inferior to the North....and they were being contained and forbidden from expanding slavery to the west and all the economic and political gains that expansion would afford the South.

And there is the irony...From the South's perspective ...the south was being used by the Fed Gov for it's economic output while being derided for it's methods and being denied political representation in keeping with their contribution and "contained" in the southern states not able to move to the new territories, denied freedoms to move West with slavery...

The South rebelled because the Fed made them feel exploited, abused and restricted, less freedom and rights than the rest of the country...just like the very slaves the South exploited themselves to arrive in that scenario

The higher powers have a sense of humor on a grand and timeless scale.

All of the above?...rooted still in the institution of slavery..

Certainly a lot of irony, such as the Northern industrialists use of slave picked cotton to use in their mills.

Yep...and in the end, when painfully forced to choose, at great cost Lincoln killed the Golden Goose rather than let the disease spread. He spoke often about how he would have avoided doing so as long as the Goose would abide by quarantine until the disease ran it's course. The Goose did not abide as it did not recognize itself as being diseased.

I've not a dog in the civil war discussion as my family emigrated to the US long, long after, but it is an interesting chapter in history. Thank you for a scintillating discussion.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: NavyDoc

Absolutely contributing factors, but of course I would argue it was still centered on slavery.

Slavery is what insulated the south from the crash of 1857, which was the bubble bursting from the gold rush. The South didn't need a Gold Rush, they had slavery.

Yes, the North benefited economically from the Slavery in the south..but the Northern states and Republicans had a slight majority and managed to take the White-House...with anti-slavery President representing an anti-slavery party.

At that point the South saw no hope of expanding slavery to the new territories, which would have expanded the South's wealth and political power...see a map of the new territories and what became off limits for southern slavery with the Republicans firmly taking power in DC.

Georgia's complaint for example: "and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. "

So the South...was being exploited for it's slavery derived wealth by the federal government, while at the same time not having representation in Federal Government corresponding to their economic contribution...while at the same time being derided and condemned as morally inferior to the North....and they were being contained and forbidden from expanding slavery to the west and all the economic and political gains that expansion would afford the South.

And there is the irony...From the South's perspective ...the south was being used by the Fed Gov for it's economic output while being derided for it's methods and being denied political representation in keeping with their contribution and "contained" in the southern states not able to move to the new territories, denied freedoms to move West with slavery...

The South rebelled because the Fed made them feel exploited, abused and restricted, less freedom and rights than the rest of the country...just like the very slaves the South exploited themselves to arrive in that scenario

The higher powers have a sense of humor on a grand and timeless scale.

All of the above?...rooted still in the institution of slavery..

Certainly a lot of irony, such as the Northern industrialists use of slave picked cotton to use in their mills.

Yep...and in the end, when painfully forced to choose, at great cost Lincoln killed the Golden Goose rather than let the disease spread. He spoke often about how he would have avoided doing so as long as the Goose would abide by quarantine until the disease ran it's course. The Goose did not abide as it did not recognize itself as being diseased.

I've not a dog in the civil war discussion as my family emigrated to the US long, long after, but it is an interesting chapter in history. Thank you for a scintillating discussion.

Same to you. Nice to have a "civil" discussion for a change

As for my family...My Great Grandfather was named after a Union General and his name carried down to me. My family was also related to a member of Lincoln's cabinet (Cousins). My family was on the Eastern Shore of Maryland with a farm on the Mason Dixon line when the war broke out. Harriet Tubman's stomping ground. My families sentiments ran Union, my G-G-Grandfather born in 1835 had 3 sons during the war and named them all after Union Generals, a bold move considering he had neighbors who were slave owners. Our family also owned slaves in Maryland from 1660 until 1855 when my G-G-Grandfather at the age of 20 chose to emancipate the last two slaves he had inherited from his father...I am not sure why, but family history suggests he fathered a child with one of those slaves and freed and then supported her, her brother and his illegitimate child on the plantation. Complicated times

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: NavyDoc

Absolutely contributing factors, but of course I would argue it was still centered on slavery.

Slavery is what insulated the south from the crash of 1857, which was the bubble bursting from the gold rush. The South didn't need a Gold Rush, they had slavery.

Yes, the North benefited economically from the Slavery in the south..but the Northern states and Republicans had a slight majority and managed to take the White-House...with anti-slavery President representing an anti-slavery party.

At that point the South saw no hope of expanding slavery to the new territories, which would have expanded the South's wealth and political power...see a map of the new territories and what became off limits for southern slavery with the Republicans firmly taking power in DC.

Georgia's complaint for example: "and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. "

So the South...was being exploited for it's slavery derived wealth by the federal government, while at the same time not having representation in Federal Government corresponding to their economic contribution...while at the same time being derided and condemned as morally inferior to the North....and they were being contained and forbidden from expanding slavery to the west and all the economic and political gains that expansion would afford the South.

And there is the irony...From the South's perspective ...the south was being used by the Fed Gov for it's economic output while being derided for it's methods and being denied political representation in keeping with their contribution and "contained" in the southern states not able to move to the new territories, denied freedoms to move West with slavery...

The South rebelled because the Fed made them feel exploited, abused and restricted, less freedom and rights than the rest of the country...just like the very slaves the South exploited themselves to arrive in that scenario

The higher powers have a sense of humor on a grand and timeless scale.

All of the above?...rooted still in the institution of slavery..

Certainly a lot of irony, such as the Northern industrialists use of slave picked cotton to use in their mills.

Yep...and in the end, when painfully forced to choose, at great cost Lincoln killed the Golden Goose rather than let the disease spread. He spoke often about how he would have avoided doing so as long as the Goose would abide by quarantine until the disease ran it's course. The Goose did not abide as it did not recognize itself as being diseased.

I've not a dog in the civil war discussion as my family emigrated to the US long, long after, but it is an interesting chapter in history. Thank you for a scintillating discussion.

I will end with this fast forward..

The South is the only part of the United States to ever be thoroughly defeated in a war...think on that one.

The Civil War is long over, but the multi-generational cultural consequences and North/South divide remain in the shadowy corners of our national fabric.

Lee Atwater, Karl Rove's mentor was gifted at exploiting that painful past for political purposes...Atwater is long dead, but his legacy in exploiting the North/South divide lives on in todays politics.

You may be right Lincoln was under pressure and the south was making overtures to france.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Sorry I couldn't resist.

Just to highlight one important fact here again that tends to be browsed over. The argument in this thread is that the institution of slavery wasn't a significant enough issue to have sparked the civil war. This is why the OP argued that only 1% of the US population consisted of slaveholders. He and so many others here conveniently forget that the argument is actually whether the institution of slavery was an important enough issue to the South to secede for. The fact is, there were 3.1 million slaves in the south back then and 390,000 slave holders. That's 38% of the population in South whom consisted of slaveholders and slaves. That's close to 40% of the population in the Confederacy.



a reply to: Semicollegiate

as did everyone who bought Southern products

Buying a product for consumption isn't comparable to the business owner earning money off it. Apples and oranges.

The North also profited greatly from slavery.

Where's your stats? They may have profited but how much more than the South? That's not to say the North went to war to rid of slavery in the first place. The South seceded to preserve it out of fear the North would.

The North shipped slaves in, and sold them.

The slave trade in the United States ended in 1807 with the Slave Trade Act 1807 so it's not relevant to the civil war. Now one could argue there were still slaves smuggled into the US following that act? But not at the same levels experienced towards the end or post 18th century.

Slavery was an institution that was phased out peacefully everywhere else in the world.

And it would've been peacefully phased out in the South eventually had they not seceded (probably well towards the end of the 19th century). They did however secede to preserve it:

Slavery is the first thing to be mentioned in the South Carolina declaration of immediate causes to secession in December 24, 1860. Slavery is mentioned 6 times, tariffs are not mentioned at all, although taxes are, in relation to slavery that is: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Mississippi declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Texas declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

There's more from other states, declarations of grievances:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

You want to know their reasoning for secession? Go to the declaration of grievances. Simple.

In 1860, Lincoln was elected with a Republican plurality in the Senate and the Morrill Tariff had already passed the House. Enough Senators could be bought, or maybe brought into the new tariff boosted industrial power base, to pass the Morrill Tariff.

So just to clarify here. Are you saying had the South not seceded and with the presence of Southern representation in congress, they still would not have had enough to stop the Morrill Tariff from passing? It's interesting you think the Republicans would've 'bought off' representatives at the time as you were arguing before that every southern representative voted against the tariff since the start.

I'd like you to clarify again for me so we're clear here. You argue there were not enough representatives in congress at the time to stop the Morrill Tariff? And can you also link to the Morill Tariff being touted as the main cause that sparked secession at that time by government officials. Thanks.

Lincoln pushed troops into Fort Sumter, the tariff collector of South Carolina's largest port

Where's your evidence that Fort Sumter was a Tariff collector? I've heard this one before.

From the South's point of view, the tariff then, like Obama Care now (the vote buyers have been pushing it since the 1960's), was just a matter of time. The tariff was for the "greater good" of the Union. And the tariff was lawful.

The future western states would probably not be slave states because either they were too dry for agriculture, like New Mexico, or the white settlers didn't want to compete with slave labor as in Kansas and Nebraska. The Southern slave states would have permanently lost their majority in the Senate at some future time.

The encroachments against slavery were not lawful in 1860, without an amendment to the constitution. As countries, at the International level, the Confederacy and its autonomous states would not want to be seen as outlaws, and secession was lawful, or else the 9th and 10th Amendments have no meaning.

Secession was also not aggressive. The North started and maintained the war until the South was ruined and occupied.

The North was the aggressor nation, it was a war of choice.

So who chose to invade and conquer? A plurality President? A population that could not tolerate slavery one more split second?

We don't know for sure, so it was a false flag in some sense.

What a pile of nonsense. The twisting of logic you utilize to try and blame the North for the South refusing to stop owning other human beings is disgusting. The Civil War was not a false flag. It was a war of ideals. The largest? The Southern ideal that owning black people was ok.

Your denial of logic has the North, suddenly, with slavery disappearing all over the world, deciding to ruin the national economy and die by the hundreds of thousands, to free people whom they never liked.

Slavery is a cloud of dense fowl smoke that progressives spew out to avoid the fact that Lincoln was a dictator backed by the Northern Establishment.

Caesar Lincoln made the central government that big money exploits and progressives suck blood with.

The War Between the States was about power and money, just like all other wars.

a reply to: Indigo5

...He (Lincoln) also fiercely opposed secession . ...

...his is why he would have been OK with the South keeping the institution of slavery if it meant preserving the union.
Not OK with secession (destroying the union)...

...the Republican Party strictly opposed slavery and secession...and secession more than slavery. ...

The War to End State Sovereignty began to preserve the Union. Lincoln had no lawful authority to preserve the Union.

On what grounds did the Union need to be preserved?

Only a belief in big progressive government.

originally posted by: Indigo5





So in your history...all of the fierce national debate centered on slavery for the decades leading up to the civil war is fictionalized and the country as a whole in 1860 had the foresight to predict a yet to be invented technological revolution in farming?

Almost every new invention patent was about farming in the 1860s. The anti-immigration faction of congress had been arguing since the 1830's that technology would make labor obsolete someday, and so we don't need more immigrants.

Slavery was phased out in the North because it was economically cumbersome, you can't fire or lay off a slave, and in general it is better not to educate a slave. Workers also pay rent and buy clothes and food, slaves do not.

Sooner or later, slavery would naturally succumb to economic forces in the South.

Slavery WAS the issue...Whether the morality of slavery or the immoral economic advantage it afforded the south or the Union prohibiting it's spread to the new terrortories..it all come back to slavery, and yes, Lincoln would have tolerated and contained slavery to the South

It was contained in the South already, but not by Lincoln or any ruler or government. Slavery was contained by the social desires and economic decisions of millions of normal people acting on self interest, day in and day out.

You can't slice this any which way that does not return to slavery.

Correlation does not imply causation. Slightly counter intuitive I know. Its real though.
www.princeton.edu...

No one in the war gains anything real by freeing the slaves.

The only players who gained anything real are the people who thrive on a strong central government.