Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War - as written by an American in 1863.

originally posted by: 3n19m470
Everybody replying is only showing more examples of what the OP claims. The issue of slavery was used by southern leaders as a rallying cry for the poor and ignorant who would not understand the finer points of the politics involved or why they should care.


I'm not an expert on the topic. I'm just saying that is what I saw here. A speech by the confederate vp that was designed to be read and reread to the masses, the common people... Well, a speech by POTUS today on foreign policy would give you the info they want the world to know. White House and Pentagon meetings may reveal very different reasons for doing certain things. Psyop, deception, propaganda, has been used forever in warfare.

Maybe the idea presented here is psyop/propaganda. Or, maybe what we've been taught in schools is pyop/propaganda. I'm not an expert on this topic.

I'm glad someone gets it. You're exactly right - it was the political class seizing on a topic that would induce fear in the people which at that time was slave rebellions openly agitated for by many radical abolitionists. Of course the Confederate state constitutions would all proclaim slavery as a reason - it's the same thing they were using to make the public afraid. There's an old saying about once you have a tiger by the tail you'll be eaten if you let go. Enslaved blacks were that tiger.

The book Uncle Tom's Cabin showed slavery at it's extreme worst as did much of the Northern press. Watch about any Quentin Tarantino movie and you will see the very same tactic at work. These kinds of things influence attitudes and work as propaganda for political aims. For all the criticism of slavery and faux moral outrage no one in the North was willing to put up the money to buy manumission for the slaves in the South. Their freedom would happen because it was helpful to the Northern war effort. In hindsight it would have been far cheaper to have bought their freedom with money than with blood.

The textbooks have changed over the years since what I was taught is not the case today. The Civil Rights act of 1964 was passed by Republicans yet today Democrats claim it was their victory. Utter nonsense. The facts of history are constantly being remolded to fit whatever political and social narrative one is selling today.

a reply to: 3n19m470

So your saying that the people who owned all the slaves or were being supported by those who owned all the slaves (political figures who orcastrated the rebellion). The very people who had the most to lose from abolishing slavery....

Just used that as a rallying cry.. they really weren't concerned about their livelihood or social structure?!?!!!




They were just intrested in the states rights of it all...



Your right about them dumbing it down and using propaganda on the "peasants" ..

But that came in the form of the whole "they are comming to get your slaves " propaganda in the first place..


With a healthy sprinkle of adding that they would enslave whites to blacks and make the whites daughters marry slaves..

It was a power play by southern fire eaters afraid that lincoin ment the new westerstates would be free states and steal their slave state majority in congress..

It was the GOP sucedeing because the dems MIGHT win all three branches next cycle..

originally posted by: intrptr

The feds won, the record is charged, the states lost to the fed, all the states. But the victors write the historical record and still persist even today in this fantasy that slavery was the primary cause.

What silly, ridiculous BS...

Why not ASK THE SOUTH why they seceded?

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...

Nothing confusing there!

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...

a reply to: 3n19m470

Because their society was set up even more like an aristocracy than the north AND slave labor took all the manual labor jobs.

Also because of slaveries cheap labor there not only was there no need fir innovation...

There was a vested interest in not innovating...

No need to invent or buy the newest plow, who cares if it makes the slaves lives easier...

No need to install a new sewer system.. some slave owner gets paid for his slaves to dig those ditches...


Is it ANY surprise most those benefiting off the cheap labor chose to keep their profits rather than expanding inferstructure and providing for the peasants???

originally posted by: Asktheanimals


The Civil Rights act of 1965 was passed by Republicans yet today Democrats claim it was their victory. Utter nonsense. The facts of history are constantly being remolded to fit whatever political and social narrative one is selling today.

That is because the south and the north swapped political parties during the battle for civil rights.

The south used to be Democrat and the North was Republican.

Same people, different letter beside their name.

Curious if you were unaware of that?

Here is an electoral map from right before the Civil Rights bill..



Here is an electoral map from 1860




1964




1952



Unless you are proposing that the entire population of the south moved North and vice versa....then SAME people and Politicians...switched parties

a reply to: soberbacchus

On my phone I'm too lazy to mess with images..

We need electoral maps from 1963 and 1967... or maybe the election after that..




(My dates are prob wrong.. I've seen it but don't recal that elections year, but the civil rights act was 1967..)
That is where the flip occurred.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

See last two images above.

a reply to: soberbacchus

That says it all right there..

a reply to: soberbacchus

Blah, blah, they played on average peoples sentiments back then just like they do about terrorism today.

Hint: The war on terror isn't about some religion, either.

originally posted by: intrptr
Hint: The war on terror isn't about some religion, either.

a reply to: intrptr

I find it closer to guns...


Democrats say they want to ban the sale of any NEW ASSAULT RIFLES...

The GOP rebuttal?

"The black helicopters are comming into people's houses and confiscating all the guns!!"

Which was the same as the lincoin republicans saying..

"We are gonna make any new states free states!! "

Then the confederate rebuttal was;

"They are comming to get our slaves and make our daughters Marry them!!!"


When there is no law enforcement body that would be willing to confiscate all the guns.. not the army, police or anyone else..

And when lincoin had absolutely zero desire to attack southern slavery..


It blows my mind people never learn...

a reply to: soberbacchus

The fact Lincoln won without winning a single Southern state was the moment they realized they lost all power in Washington. Since the beginning the South was the politically dominant section. By 1860 the Senate was tied with 16 slave-holding and 16 free states, admitting Kansas as free threw the Senate in favor of the North. The North already had the majority in the House due to their population being twice as large. The North had both houses and the Presidency. The South was effectively dis-empowered at the Federal level by 1860 and the North could pass any law they wanted without the assent of the South. We fought the revolution for the same reason - the right to self-rule.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: soberbacchus

The fact Lincoln won without winning a single Southern state was the moment they realized they lost all power in Washington. Since the beginning the South was the politically dominant section. By 1860 the Senate was tied with 16 slave-holding and 16 free states, admitting Kansas as free threw the Senate in favor of the North. The North already had the majority in the House due to their population being twice as large. The North had both houses and the Presidency. The South was effectively dis-empowered at the Federal level by 1860 and the North could pass any law they wanted without the assent of the South. We fought the revolution for the same reason - the right to self-rule.

Not a lot to disagree with apart from the last.

A Monarchy is not a democracy where a party or ideology achieves majority in government.

If the premise is that each party or ideology has the right to self rule...then the "union" is and always has been pointless and certainly now with the federal government being majority GOP across all branches, you make a case for war?

A Monarchy was a rule of 1..unelected Dictator, elected by inheritance.

It is comparing Apples to Stegosauruses..

On the other point...Yes the South was losing power in governance and that was a factor in the rebellion..but their power in governance was built on Slavery and the economic wealth accrued in the blood and toil of an entire race. The political power they had was never justly founded..it was capital loaned to them by the devil himself...The South's power and slavery were inextricable one in the same..they fought to preserve both.

a reply to: soberbacchus

You and many others make good arguments in this thread.
We probably won't change each others opinions on the matter but those who undecided reap the benefits.
They can see both sides and decide for themselves.
I've always been the guy who sided with the underdog, in the 80's I protested the klan and the moral majority.
Now it's the Antebellum South that is being under-represented, especially in education and popular media to the point where they have become the whipping boy for our National sin of slavery and by extension racism.
I have read Zinn's A People's History several times, I know how we mistreated both slave and Native Americans.
Now we're at a time where it's very unpopular to "advocate" (defend) the Southern side of the issues at hand.
To me it's about balance, someone must take up the unpopular causes and show their side as well.
So cheers to you and everyone who has entered this debate.
I love ATS because we can discuss these issues rationally, without intimidation or violence.
That's why I starred your last post.
Thank you for articulating your position so well.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: soberbacchus

Now it's the Antebellum South that is being under-represented, especially in education and popular media to the point where they have become the whipping boy for our National sin of slavery and by extension racism.

Now we're at a time where it's very unpopular to "advocate" (defend) the Southern side of the issues at hand.
To me it's about balance, someone must take up the unpopular causes and show their side as well.

Thank you for a great post.

How to put it?

I love the south. I love southern food. I love southern hospitality. I have spent lazy hot days wandering the cities of Savanna, Ashville and other places. I have wandered old plantations in Maryland and Virginia. I very much appreciate the South's unique history and culture and architecture and unusually friendly demeanor etc.

BUT Racism is indefensible. Slavery was and is indefensible. Full stop.

Tell me something like the growing economic struggles of the average white southerner is very real, but does not "sell" as well on CNN as the plight of African American kids in city ghettos? and thus we hear less about it?

YES.

Tell me that there is a very real alcohol and drug epidemic amongst white southerners, or struggling whites in general, but the news media is/was slow to cover it?

YES.

Tell me that the economic winds of change have been particularly cruel to the American South and Appalachia and the media was too busy covering Amazon's latest home delivery drone or the new iPhone to notice?

YES.

The South needs help. Appalachia needs help. Just like impoverished African American communities need and have needed help for a long while.

BUT Neo-Nazi parades and confederate flags does not bring economic help. It brings disgust.

Blaming brown people and immigrants does not solve those problems. It creates less empathy and understanding, not more.

Lincoln knew this inherently. He loved the south. He loved the Union. He knew slavery was the South's Cancer and nearly killed the patient to cure the disease.

Whether what we see now is a relapse or not? I suspect (or hope) it is a cancerous mole, vs. systematic disease.

Defend the south and their very real challenges in this modern world? ALWAYS. Yes. Let's figure it out and problem solve.
Defend the racism and hate and the scapegoating of brown people and immigrants? NEVER
That cancer needs to be confronted and destroyed fiercely with conviction if we are ever going to address the real issues the South faces. Because the moral argument aside, no more brown people and immigrants isn't going to solve their problems.

well, even from the lay it was states rights vs big fed.....most with brothers of theirs, that were staying at their house so to speak, and doin all the work.......that came from far away.....were already moving the free all

from officers recorded in history with letters

a reply to: GBP/JPY

None of that is true, and no historian would ever claim either thing..(except the part about their being countless surviving documents..that's true...)


You are quoting the lost cause doctrine, which are the conspiracy theorists of civil war history...

If you actually care to Learn about it. You tube has the best documentary on the subject in "ken burns:the civil war".

a reply to: soberbacchus

You make good points, except about lincoin and slavery..

Lincoin was only lip service against slavery...

He was against it as long as it didn't cost too much...


There are 2 lies about the civil war..

1) the north fought to free the slaves..

They weren't any better on race relations than the south..

2) the south didn't fight to protect slavery..

Both are lies..and the real story is way better...

Lincoin allowed slaves to be confiscated from those who rebelled and let them form "USCT" divisions.

Once the black soldiers began fighting, the abolitionists quickly turned the narrative from succession to slavery with:

" are we really gonna send these brave American soldiers and their families back into bondage?!?'"

That and a healthy dose of wanting to punish the rebels, created the political will for the abolition of slavery..


Lincoin and the federal government only deserve about 15% of the credit..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: soberbacchus

You make good points, except about lincoin and slavery..

Lincoin was only lip service against slavery...

He was against it as long as it didn't cost too much...

I don't think you have read my posts on the topic?

There are 2 lies about the civil war..

1) the north fought to free the slaves..

They fought to preserve the union and eliminating slavery became part and parcel of that. The North as a whole had little interest in Slavery and many in the North were ideologically opposed to the practice.

They weren't any better on race relations than the south..

Yes they were, but admittedly still racist on average by todays standards.

2) the south didn't fight to protect slavery..

That is precisely what they fought for. Either directly or indirectly.
Gen Robert E. Lee for example was not a fan of slavery, but economically depended on it. He would tell you he fought to defend his beloved home state of Virginia, not slavery, but Virginia succeeded in order to preserve slavery..so he chose his side regardless.

Lincoin allowed slaves to be confiscated from those who rebelled and let them form "USCT" divisions.

Once the black soldiers began fighting, the abolitionists quickly turned the narrative from succession to slavery with:

" are we really gonna send these brave American soldiers and their families back into bondage?!?'"

That and a healthy dose of wanting to punish the rebels, created the political will for the abolition of slavery..

Half right...Lincoln emancipated the slaves to win the war, but Lincoln was indisputably vehemently against the institution of slavery even long before he became President.

a reply to: soberbacchus

1) I was saying "the south didn't fight for slavery" as one of the 2 lies biggest told..

I was not saying that the south didn't.. just that that was one of the big lies told..


2) the north was screaming "we don't care about southern slavery " basiclly the entire war..

To pretend that was ever the federal governments goal is revisionist history..

Lincoin personally gave repeated speeches swearing he wouldn't interfere with southern slavery..

From what I have seen , 99.9% of the northern population was not against slavery for moral reasons..

It was all economic.. northern businesses couldn't compete with slave labor. Who could????

The norther opposition to slavery wasn't the plight of black Americans.. it was the fact they stole jobs..

Whites like john brown with a modern view of slavery were 1 in a million in the time.. not the average Northener .