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

a reply to: luthier yes, and that continues my thinking. With the industry of the north developing at a rapid pace the south,in order to produce the raw materials for those industries would need to increase its production also and based on slave labor they would need more slaves. And from what I understand they could see clearly that their ability to do so would be severely limited in their future.

We need to remember that in both the north and the south there were oligarchs, there were elitists who wanted to control everything within their site. The rich from both sides knew that the developing industries we're going to make fast fortunes for whoever controls the production and the resources to feed into that production. And as our OP points

It was the wealthy Southerners who prayed upon the fears of the southern commoners and instigated the war

Indeed it was only a matter of a few decades when we faced the outgrowth of that industrialization in the form of the tycoons and robber barons and vast monopolies that were owned and controlled by the oligarchs of the north

a reply to: Asktheanimals

In what way does his statement cancel out EVERYONE ELSE'S, including all the actual members of the confederate government???

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Right, in other words the fear of losing their slaves was necessary to instill. Thus, the culture and motivation of the secession of the South and to go to war was about slavery.

You cannot divorce them. However let's play revision. There was no slavery in America, ever. The South seceded for noble reasons. The South still seceded and therefor were not American at the time, traitors in fact. So why would ever as a nation, celebrate treason?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I don't see how anything written there changes the fact that the South seceded and fought over the ability to own slaves. Whether it was for trade agreements (economic) or the notion that Africans should be owned (moral) it was still about slavery.

There's no separating it.

Because there was no real danger of slavery being abolished in the states that still had it.
The Constitution guaranteed it.
The Civil War was predicated on the fear of Republicans and radical abolitionists starting slave insurrections.

That is hardly true. The cases of precedent were not there for you to make that assumption.

reply to: JoshuaCox
In a manner of speaking yes. But if you like I get more descriptive in a few other replies after this one.

a reply to: Mikehawk

FYI My dad picked cotton as a kid in Arkansas.
Quoting the words of a respected Northern historian from the time is trying to rewrite history?
Another FYI - ALL our ancestors bought and sold other human beings.
Nobody has any moral high ground to be speaking down from.

a reply to: luthier

Yeah the MEDICCIs just regrouped and NOW run the UPPER tier of the military Industrial complex here in secrecy...and our government by cash proxy.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Funny I went to work in Texas in 99 during the massive boom, those "republicans/Dixiecrats allowing the rapid growth with illegal labor had a real .......for all that new tax revanu with the housing surges.

I ended up being very annoyed as a journeyman cabinet maker, and then realizing who the real bad guys were. And it wasn't the guys crapping in drywall buckets.

a reply to: Mikehawk

People say you can't judge the whole by the actions of a few.
I hear that all the time.
The 94% of those who lived in the South who didn't own slaves are guilty of what?
It was a tiny percentage of those people with real power who determine what happens, whether or not we go to war, etc.
It was the same back then.
I'm sure the average Iraqi hates us for ruining their country.
I protested in Washington several times along with millions of others.
I can understand their feelings but I won't accept the guilt.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens disagrees:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us; the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

Wikiquote

and if he left any doubt ... he went on to say that ...

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day.

EDIT: I have always maintained the same argument ... that there was a constellation of political and economic concerns for the Civil War.

I was mistaken. It was about slavery and White Supremacy.

Then G explain to me why the black mans life was more important than the brown mans life.

Since during the era native americans were slaughtered.

After all the north was so righteous in their cause.

Slavery was a huge part of the war, but back then states were pretty much their own little countries.
Most of the southern states just followed in forming a succession from the north, it was more about southern pride at the very beginning, and turned into a political and economical war with slavery as the main factor for the south.

Lee didn't even want to fight for the south, but his home state joined the confederacy, and he was in love for his state.

What boggles my mind is that several northern states kept slavery after the war, nothing really changed.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Ya gotta wonder why we don't know their names???

The southern elite fire eaters who started the war i mean..

Maybe the history would be better known if people knew X,Y and Z were the specific architects of the rebellion and had a face to put on it..

a reply to: Asktheanimals

By 1860 the slave population in the United States had reached 4 million. Of all 1,515,605 free families in the fifteen slave states in 1860, nearly 400,000 held slaves (roughly one in four, or 25%), amounting to 8% of all American families.

en.wikipedia.org...

The only thing the civil war was about was money and power.

The north wanted money, and seek to preserve the union at any cost.

Even killing it's own countryman.

the end of slavery was merely a biproduct.

originally posted by: neo96
The only thing the civil war was about was money and power.

The north wanted money, and seek to preserve the union at any cost.

Even killing it's own countryman.

the end of slavery was merely a biproduct.

And the South knew if they had to pay for labor they economy would tank.

The lack of comprehension in questions asked in this thread, already answered in the OP is... expected, sadly.

Great thread, I was going to post the same later, glad you beat me to it. Now I don't have to take an aspirin.

originally posted by: neo96
The only thing the civil war was about was money and power.

The north wanted money, and seek to preserve the union at any cost.

Even killing it's own countryman.

the end of slavery was merely a biproduct.

Wrong. It was about slavery. Even when you look at money...which in this case was free labor from slaves. The civil war had many things leading up to it, and at all of them was the root of Slavery. Do some research.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Mikehawk

People say you can't judge the whole by the actions of a few.
I hear that all the time.
The 94% of those who lived in the South who didn't own slaves are guilty of what?
It was a tiny percentage of those people with real power who determine what happens, whether or not we go to war, etc.
It was the same back then.
I'm sure the average Iraqi hates us for ruining their country.
I protested in Washington several times along with millions of others.
I can understand their feelings but I won't accept the guilt.

They are guilty of being used as pawns for some aristocratic bs. And the economy would collapse as well as state infrastructure.

Heres the YANKEE side of it..www.pbs.org...

a reply to: luthier

Blah

The North were sure winners!

The Great Emancipator was almost the Great Colonizer: Newly released documents show that to a greater degree than historians had previously known, President Lincoln laid the groundwork to ship freed slaves overseas to help prevent racial strife in the U.S.

www.washingtontimes.com...