The real reason for the Civil War.

originally posted by: Anonopolis
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Right and wrong, nothing is so bland. To think war was fought over slavery is silly. The civil war was to unite a federal union, one nation.

At this time, south succeeding was a major problem. Most of agriculture in time was harvested in south, sugar cane being popular. It was crippling the union. South if not attacked, would have strived better than Union. Mainly because of Mississippi river.

Today, if power went out... Union and West would rip each other raw. South would keep on trucking on.It's different world down here.

It was entire different belief system. South is and always will be known as the bible belt. Some racist mind set and very religious. They hated the current central banking system and hated decoration of Independence too. Why? They didn't believe in Jewish control of banks supplying nation with interest. Seen it as "white slavery". Believed Christianity should be only religious belief to not mix social injustices. They didn't believe everyone was created equal, didn't believe in freedom of religion if it wasn't Christianity.

Some quotes most don't know about Ol Honest Abe. Just prove point on his opinion on slaves and real reason behind attacking Union.

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality to the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my opinion, will probably forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and, in as much as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference..."

"as long as blacks continue to live with whites, they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may, someday, challenge the supremecy of the white man."

Also New York Tribune Aug 22, 1862
"if I could free the union without freeing any slaves, I would do it. If I could do it without freeing all the slaves, I would do it. And if it came to freeing some while others are not, I would do that. What I do about slavery of colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the union. "

or his 1st Inaugurated addresses..
"Saving the union is to strengthen the grip of federal government on any and all citizens, any and all territories, any and all states."

"No state, upon it's mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union... resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void."

It was only to push strong arm of the federal government. Still to this day, south hates big government. Most won't tolerate liberal social outcries like Homosexuality, Child Pornography, Beastiality, Transgender, Communism, Socialism, and anything that defiles against Jesus Christ.

These ideas are what fuels most of this. White lash or civil war or race war or holy war. Even most non Christians of the south have different eye on things. It doesn't bother them the things we hold true for safety and virtue of our beliefs. People knock Christianity but it's by far most attacked religion.

Look at Christmas, in 40s...50s...60s... look at it now. Something to be fun and holy is practically dismantled. It's not the same. Can be sued to not to participate to sin. This pastor won't marry gay couple is ridiculous. He should have that right. Anyone at anytime has right to refuse service if it goes against their beliefs. It's minorities getting rights while original norm is being prosecuted. These Social Justice Warriors... It's silly and childish. America and Europe don't want to see it turned into Sodem & Gomorrah like it continues to do so. Ironically, Christian beliefs are prosecuted while these social justice warriors try push to allow Sharia Law. It's preposterous.

It doesn't work. Not everyone can have rights, it just doesn't work out. In the end, that's why we have these laws. Lands once Nation under God is multicultural disaster, meanwhile no one else has to be. It irates me and irates a lot of people seeing this country just be ran into dirt. I'm not going preach to you but damn, besides God being real.. besides Jesus ever existing.. besides that, the laws of bible have use in America. Despite what Bill Mahr says, these fundamentals is what got us to 1960s.

Best example of this is holy war. Christians are ones for thousands of years has died for its land and it's beliefs. When Islam came, we won, and countless times have persecuted the jews. It doesn't work.

If Christians preached peace and love,
Jews not picked messiah, working have 2800 slaves (goyims)
and Muslim/Islam wants to conquer the world, stone people, kill infidels

How are we to live in peace? Cry all want, but I am old. America ain't freaking same. It's a landfill of poor dumb ideology and thought of acceptable rights to biggest cry baby winner. We can't even get US born citizen we voted for in office, while immigrant president calls shots.

Honestly, it's been long time coming. call me Xenophobe I don't care, diversity means chasing down last white Christian male. Our bible warns of this. We aren't diversifying China, or Mexico, or any nation. It's us under attack while everyone sits back and cries about injustice. Tired being called racist.. I'm not privilege either. There's obviously reason Europe and North America strive, and it wasn't because of "diversity". It's that concept that destroyed most countries, Europe and America is next. Ironically, any nation under God is blessed, so says Bible. Now that it slips away, deeper we fall into darkness.

Maybe others should take heed.

Attacked by Judaism, attacked by Muslims, attacked by Islamist, attacked now by our own people because why? Because we are charitable religion? Cry "oooh they put cross on CHRISTmas tree! oh, another birth of Jesus is on TV! Oh, there giving medical relief in third world countries! Oh, they feed the homeless! Oh why must I participate in Easter?"

Blah.

Your forgetting like ,every major milestone...

There was no, none-slavery related hot button topic of the day.

The democrats held the Supreme Court, presidency , congress and the senate. Before lincoins election.

A small group of southern elite (fire eaters) engineered the democrat parties split on the eve of the election.





So lincoin wins, but The south succeedes before lincoin even takes office. Not after some big policy position.


They stormed any southern military base and stole all of the United States arsenal they could.

Then they fired the first shots.. multiple times..the very first shots at a civilization vessel rearming fort sumner.

So the civil war was orcastrated by the south for the south, at the expense of America as a whole, and it failed miserably.

Pickets charge miserably

a reply to: JoshuaCox

In our present day short history , money and economics have taken on a kind of strange standing compared to days of old .The Law and laws in them selves are a bit ambiguous . What is a person ? just as one example .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: JoshuaCox

In our present day short history , money and economics have taken on a kind of strange standing compared to days of old .The Law and laws in them selves are a bit ambiguous . What is a person ? just as one example .

Nothing new migo..

All of human history we have been fighting the same fights.

Look into the gracci brothers from Rome, Rome had an influx of slave labor from their conquests. Which caused unemployment and the wealth gap to skyrocket.

Guy comes along and decides to redistribute the farm land amongst the people and regulate what percent of slave labor is allowed.

The wealthy aristocracy start a negative ad campaign pretending he wants to make himself king..

Literally the same political game being played today.

It has always been the oligarchy and whatever percent of the regular folk they pay off Vs everyone else.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Raggedyman

hi - to aid discussion - could you list 3 countries that :

"ended slavery with little or no blood shed. "

Well, there was that 'country' called the British Empire.

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, didn't the Emancipation Proclamation only free the slaves that were not under Lincoln's control anyway? (ie northern slaves were not freed at that time)

Absolutely.

The war was fought over succession, and succession was over the FEAR slavery would be regulated.

The precivil war north was only interested in stopping the spread of slavery. The south was fear moungered into succession.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
The abolition of slavery isn't really remembered except in America.

Well, perhaps in America, but in Her Majesty's realms we are aware of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.

Was that when only African slavery was ended?

What about the enslavment of everyone else?

Only the ending of african slavery is ever highlighted...that said it is the most recent slavery related event, but still was the last part not middle.

Historians themselves don't all agree on the root cause.

However in this case, the best bet is to read each states articles of succession. For some states it was about the over reach of the gov and states rights. Other states, like South Carolina (i hope my memory is correct), it was about slavery.

In short, it depended. Some states with was about states rights and other states it was about slavery and their wanting to keep and maintain chattel slavery.

originally posted by: cenpuppie
Historians themselves don't all agree on the root cause.

However in this case, the best bet is to read each states articles of succession. For some states it was about the over reach of the gov and states rights. Other states, like South Carolina (i hope my memory is correct), it was about slavery.

In short, it depended. Some states with was about states rights and other states it was about slavery and their wanting to keep and maintain chattel slavery.

What issue or legislation was sited?

There were no nonslavery issues sited.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
During a discussion on another site some years ago a commenter suggested that the campaign to abolish slavery was about changing one set of bondage for another. Essentially what was happening was the release from actual slavery was only to facilitate the transition into the slavery of mass consumerism, monetarism, and debt. The commenter was roundly shouted down but others thought as I did, that this was a possibly valid point and worthy of exploration.

Bingo.

You cannot spread your industry into southern states without a ready workforce to staff them.

The civil war was northern industrialists wanting to level the playing field with southern agriculturalists. The agriculturalists dominated politics, since money has always equated to power. The industrialists wanted the agriculturalists to pay for labor like they did.

The south didn't help anyone with Jim Crow, as our nation would be stronger if we had more integration and greater opportunity for all races. We are a meritocracy, and need to act like one.

How about some real history?

Slavery in the United States began even before it was a country. During early colonization, most slaves were indentured servants who sold themselves for a specified period to pay for their crossing. There simply wasn't enough money to buy true slaves, although a few natives were sold to the white man as slaves. As the country grew, however, the wealthier families started to purchase slaves. As they did so, the slave traders began to visit New York to sell their wares.

The slave traders were opportunists and mercenaries who would visit poor areas and either capture or trade for slaves they could sell elsewhere for a tidy little profit. They preferred a non-violent trade, as their purpose was profit and dead men have a hard time spending their profits. Also, every person they killed taking over a village was one less product for them to sell. There weren't many undeveloped countries left by the 1800s outside of Africa, so Africa became the major source of slaves. Some came from South America as well, but Africa was more densely populated. A few came from developed countries where rulers would sell off those they decided were troublemakers to get rid of them and get a few coins in return.

As time went on, the originally poor South saw some plantation owners wealthy enough to buy their own slaves. Just as in the North, as soon as a market developed, the slave traders started visiting Southern ports. The plantation owners soon became wealthier from the use of this new labor source, so much so that the Southern economy stagnated for the common person. The vast majority of Southerners never owned slaves, while a small minority became wealthy enough to own vast numbers of them.

It was this use of slave labor that allowed the rise of agriculture in the South to the extent that the North, with its limited land and shorter growing seasons, came to rely on trade with the South for its food and cotton. Industrialization became the norm in the North because a person could make more profit from a ten-acre factory than from a thousand-acre farm. The South had no interest in industrialization... they had a thriving economy based on agriculture. Both used slaves still, but the North was not nearly as dependent on them; slaves in the North were usually houseservants, while in the South they were also production labor.

The problems with the War of Northern Aggression started over taxation of land. The Federal government passed a tax law that taxed property based entirely on acreage. The Southern states objected, since this was going to hit them much harder than the North. At the same time, people in both areas were beginning to realize slavery was wrong. The plantation owners were the ones who were sensitive to talk of anti-slavery, while the average person in the South simply didn't care, or leaned a little toward freeing the slaves. Of course, to protect their interests, plantation owners used the taxation bill, which hit everyone hard, to push for secession.

During the war, blacks from the South voluntarily fought alongside Confederate soldiers... many in return for a promise of freedom after the war. No one from the plantations except slaves fought. The vast, vast majority of Confederate soldiers never owned slaves, nor did their families. They were fighting to keep their land from threats of taxation beyond their ability to pay.

The South did not start the war. Federal troops marched on a Federal fort claimed by the Confederacy in Carolina after the South seceded and fired on the inhabitants. The Southerners fired back. It was on.

Lincoln originally thought the war would be short-lived, but as time went on he began to lose support in the North. The South was winning most battles and were beginning to encroach into Northern territory. War wasn't fun anymore. He began the discussion on slavery rather than just preserving the Union in order to garner popular support.

During the war, William Tecumseh Sherman received permission to take an army through the South to disrupt supply lines. During this March, he and his soldiers murdered children, including babies, in front of their mothers, killed the women and elderly in cold blood, destroyed crops and homes by fire, and left the now-homeless slaves to fend for themselves. He literally burned bridges behind him to keep the slaves from following him. His writings contain racist statements toward the freed black slaves that would have even made the racist Abraham Lincoln cringe. He was nothing short of a war criminal, and quite possibly one of the worst in recorded history.

The Emancipation Proclamation, often touted as freeing slaves, only applied to slaves south of the Mason-Dixon line. Northern states did not outlaw slavery for a few more years. The obvious intent was to punish the South. I believe Johnny Canuck already mentioned this.

The Confederate soldiers returned home, many wounded, to find their homes damaged or destroyed, many of their families executed, and now faced with impossible taxes. They had only one income: their land. So they had to either create a crop by themselves from nothing, or lose their land to the conquering Federal government. Many lost their land to the carpet baggers, wealthy businessmen from the North who took advantage of the situation. They would offer a tiny fraction of actual worth for the land, and the owners had little choice. They could either accept pennies on the dollar, or receive nothing when the Federal government took their land for taxes. Most sold out... some refused and lost their homes anyway... a few managed to hang on.

An entire population was destroyed. Racism began in earnest, fierce enough to continue for another 100 years plus. People were robbed of everything they owned and left homeless. Their descendents were degraded and dehumanized. And now, again, someone us self-righteous enough to make a ludicrous claim that the rewriting of history didn't happen, that it was good against evil and the good won.

Shame on you. How can you sleep at night?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The natives enslaved each other long before they traded Indian slaves with "the white man". It was something we all had in common.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Funny how the truth is lost when the victors write History isn't it?

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: TheRedneck

Funny how the truth is lost when the victors write History isn't it?

The taxes based on acerage also taxed slaves at only 1/3rd their value..

The Supreme Court, the president, the senate and congress all had a southern slave state majoritities...

The south rebeled before lincoin ever took office and some over reaching policy could be implemented.

The south stormed any southern military base AND stole any US army property they could steal..even if you believe they had a right to the land (they didn't, there is no exit clause in the constitution) they didn't have a right to all the armament, made in the north.

The south fired first, at the orders of the confederate president...the very first shots at a civilian steamer sent to resulply sumner.


There was no war of northern aggression, they rebeled before the republicans even took office.

There was no contraversial issue of the day except slavery.

The land tax you mentioned I'm assuming was actually a tax on imports that the south claimed hurt them worse, but not even close to enough to actually rebel..

The south rebeled not because of some northern over reach, the south owned ever branch of government pre lincoin and paid no more taxs than anyone else...in fact they paid less taxes because slaves were undertaxed. They rebelled because a group of southern fire eaters rigged the election for lincoin (by splitting the democrat party )) because they wanted to succeed and run things.

They just assumed the us government would allow 1/3 of its soverign territory to be stolen..

The war of northern aggression is nothing but lost cause mythos Laughed at by historians...

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TheRedneck

The natives enslaved each other long before they traded Indian slaves with "the white man". It was something we all had in common.

What does that have to do with anything??

Whites enslaved whites too...

Nothing slavery related changes the fact the south trash canned the US constitution and killed 100s of thousands of patriotic US service members, in a failed attempt to steal 1/3 of United States soverign territory.


There is no exit clause in the constitution, no nation would even be a nation if at any time any generation could just decide they were no longer americans (or example).

Hell why stop at states?!?!

Why can't a town succeed?

How about a neighborhood?

Why can't my house succeed??

Because all ownership is through the government, with no government your local warlord owns your stuff, not you.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
How about some real history?

Slavery in the United States began even before it was a country. During early colonization, most slaves were indentured servants who sold themselves for a specified period to pay for their crossing. There simply wasn't enough money to buy true slaves, although a few natives were sold to the white man as slaves. As the country grew, however, the wealthier families started to purchase slaves. As they did so, the slave traders began to visit New York to sell their wares.

The slave traders were opportunists and mercenaries who would visit poor areas and either capture or trade for slaves they could sell elsewhere for a tidy little profit. They preferred a non-violent trade, as their purpose was profit and dead men have a hard time spending their profits. Also, every person they killed taking over a village was one less product for them to sell. There weren't many undeveloped countries left by the 1800s outside of Africa, so Africa became the major source of slaves. Some came from South America as well, but Africa was more densely populated. A few came from developed countries where rulers would sell off those they decided were troublemakers to get rid of them and get a few coins in return.

As time went on, the originally poor South saw some plantation owners wealthy enough to buy their own slaves. Just as in the North, as soon as a market developed, the slave traders started visiting Southern ports. The plantation owners soon became wealthier from the use of this new labor source, so much so that the Southern economy stagnated for the common person. The vast majority of Southerners never owned slaves, while a small minority became wealthy enough to own vast numbers of them.

It was this use of slave labor that allowed the rise of agriculture in the South to the extent that the North, with its limited land and shorter growing seasons, came to rely on trade with the South for its food and cotton. Industrialization became the norm in the North because a person could make more profit from a ten-acre factory than from a thousand-acre farm. The South had no interest in industrialization... they had a thriving economy based on agriculture. Both used slaves still, but the North was not nearly as dependent on them; slaves in the North were usually houseservants, while in the South they were also production labor.

The problems with the War of Northern Aggression started over taxation of land. The Federal government passed a tax law that taxed property based entirely on acreage. The Southern states objected, since this was going to hit them much harder than the North. At the same time, people in both areas were beginning to realize slavery was wrong. The plantation owners were the ones who were sensitive to talk of anti-slavery, while the average person in the South simply didn't care, or leaned a little toward freeing the slaves. Of course, to protect their interests, plantation owners used the taxation bill, which hit everyone hard, to push for secession.

During the war, blacks from the South voluntarily fought alongside Confederate soldiers... many in return for a promise of freedom after the war. No one from the plantations except slaves fought. The vast, vast majority of Confederate soldiers never owned slaves, nor did their families. They were fighting to keep their land from threats of taxation beyond their ability to pay.

The South did not start the war. Federal troops marched on a Federal fort claimed by the Confederacy in Carolina after the South seceded and fired on the inhabitants. The Southerners fired back. It was on.

Lincoln originally thought the war would be short-lived, but as time went on he began to lose support in the North. The South was winning most battles and were beginning to encroach into Northern territory. War wasn't fun anymore. He began the discussion on slavery rather than just preserving the Union in order to garner popular support.

During the war, William Tecumseh Sherman received permission to take an army through the South to disrupt supply lines. During this March, he and his soldiers murdered children, including babies, in front of their mothers, killed the women and elderly in cold blood, destroyed crops and homes by fire, and left the now-homeless slaves to fend for themselves. He literally burned bridges behind him to keep the slaves from following him. His writings contain racist statements toward the freed black slaves that would have even made the racist Abraham Lincoln cringe. He was nothing short of a war criminal, and quite possibly one of the worst in recorded history.

The Emancipation Proclamation, often touted as freeing slaves, only applied to slaves south of the Mason-Dixon line. Northern states did not outlaw slavery for a few more years. The obvious intent was to punish the South. I believe Johnny Canuck already mentioned this.

The Confederate soldiers returned home, many wounded, to find their homes damaged or destroyed, many of their families executed, and now faced with impossible taxes. They had only one income: their land. So they had to either create a crop by themselves from nothing, or lose their land to the conquering Federal government. Many lost their land to the carpet baggers, wealthy businessmen from the North who took advantage of the situation. They would offer a tiny fraction of actual worth for the land, and the owners had little choice. They could either accept pennies on the dollar, or receive nothing when the Federal government took their land for taxes. Most sold out... some refused and lost their homes anyway... a few managed to hang on.

An entire population was destroyed. Racism began in earnest, fierce enough to continue for another 100 years plus. People were robbed of everything they owned and left homeless. Their descendents were degraded and dehumanized. And now, again, someone us self-righteous enough to make a ludicrous claim that the rewriting of history didn't happen, that it was good against evil and the good won.

Shame on you. How can you sleep at night?

TheRedneck

Federal troops never marched on dirt summer.. they were already there... because it was a US army base. The siege stopped reinforcements or food from ever entering after succession. Which is why they surrendered, food ran out.

Sherman did not rape and murder thousands of civilians.. atrocities always happen in war. He burned countless homes and farms, but then fed and took care of the starving people of savanna after he took it.


The same could be said of the southern home guard and once the south started confiscating stuff. The home guards robbed and murdered (against orders) more southern civilians than Sherman ever did.


The destruction he caused was overstated, as it was planned to. His march was psychological. Show the south the confederacy cannot protect them and they will drop the rebellion.


Nor did most return home to destroyed homes.. that was only really shermans 60 mile swath and Vicksburg. Not even close to most soldiers.



Did you really just say racism began in earnest after the war?!?! Have you heard any quote from either side?!,! Lol

Both the north and south were far more racist than any kkk grand wizard of today..

The north didn't wanna free the slaves they wanted to boot them back to Africa.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You should read the first 2 sentences of the post i was replying to, and it would be more than clear what my comment has to do with.

I didn't make a comment in a vacuum. I was replying to someone.

Secede is the word you are looking for.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The first slaves were White. They're now known as the Slavs. This is what the word Slave comes from.

If you want to get super technical, they were not the first Slaves(1400's? Who knows. It's probably BC, slavery as a concept can exist with 2 people). They were the first slaves sold for money in mass though(1600's. Money as a global idea with slave trade was brand new). They were bought by everyone in Europe, including by Free Slavics, and "The Jews".

Before this, slaves had no value at all. Some had additional status.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Sherman did not rape and murder thousands of civilians.. atrocities always happen in war. He burned countless homes and farms, but then fed and took care of the starving people of savanna after he took it.

You, sir, are in desperate need of a history lesson. His atrocities are recorded in letters and reports from families throughout the South. His abandonment of the freed slaves is recorded in reports from his own soldiers.

May I suggest reading "Cindarella" next? It's a nice fairy tale too.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Sherman did not rape and murder thousands of civilians.. atrocities always happen in war. He burned countless homes and farms, but then fed and took care of the starving people of savanna after he took it.

You, sir, are in desperate need of a history lesson. His atrocities are recorded in letters and reports from families throughout the South. His abandonment of the freed slaves is recorded in reports from his own soldiers.

May I suggest reading "Cindarella" next? It's a nice fairy tale too.

TheRedneck

I don't doubt he left behind the freed slaves.

There are also letters from southerners praising his mercy and logistical expertise in keeping savanna Georgia fed and public order..


Same with Bedford Forrest and the fort pillow massacare. There are letters saying he ordered the massacare and letters saying the only reason anyone survived is because he stood in front of them sword and pistol drawn..

The truth is prob somewhere in between.

Sherman gave orders not to molest any civilians..but to burn anything that could help the confederacy make war .

But as any military buff will tell you getting thousands of men to remain civilized in battle is a monumental feat.

In both instances I'm sure the worst came because of people who refused to surrender.

In warfare if you make the superior force have to charge your walls, rather than surrender, the attacking forces tend to do messed up stuff... for all of history.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The first slaves were White. They're now known as the Slavs. This is what the word Slave comes from.

If you want to get super technical, they were not the first Slaves(1400's? Who knows. It's probably BC, slavery as a concept can exist with 2 people). They were the first slaves sold for money in mass though(1600's. Money as a global idea with slave trade was brand new). They were bought by everyone in Europe, including by Free Slavics, and "The Jews".

Before this, slaves had no value at all. Some had additional status.

There were slaves long before their were slavs.

Maybe that is the root of the English pronunciation, but the sumerians kept slaves long before there really was a civilization.

The Romans took and sold huge quantities for slaves as well as the Greeks and Persians... the Egyptians and really everyone else 300 years ago.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Sherman did not rape and murder thousands of civilians.. atrocities always happen in war. He burned countless homes and farms, but then fed and took care of the starving people of savanna after he took it.

You, sir, are in desperate need of a history lesson. His atrocities are recorded in letters and reports from families throughout the South. His abandonment of the freed slaves is recorded in reports from his own soldiers.

May I suggest reading "Cindarella" next? It's a nice fairy tale too.

TheRedneck

Also I noticed you only addressed the one debatable counterpoint.

I guess choosing to ignore all the rest of the well know historical facts I sighted.

Such as there's being no policy that lead to succession, the pro slavery democrats owning all branchs of government, the south firing first..twice, the lack of an exit clause in the constitution and the southern "fire eaters" who purposefully split the democrat party on the eve of the election all the while planning on a bloodless succession.




There is a well documented paper trail on the civil war... all from quotes from the principle characters..


Hell almost every general in the south argued against succession until their states did it anyway, forcing their hands.

I love history lessons, but from what you've shown me I'm not sure i need one..


PS I'm a white guy from MS.