Was the American Civil War really about slavery?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I'm very interested in History, and although one hears much of the Civil War in film and generalised terms elsewhere, I've just been on Wikipedia and read very unsure statements on slavery as the CAUSE of that war: ie, that Lincoln never condemmed slavery where it existed, and only wanted to stop its spread. So maybe it was all about who wanted to control the West and the Native American territories?
I just cannot believe that 600 000 people killed each other for that. And many of the Indians were slave-holders at that point too. I mean not like slavery is right or anything (it's still rife in Africa today - but if you criticize African culture you're a "racist"), but in the context of that time it seems like an unlikely cause in reality. It's just like nobody "outside" conspiracy could ever explain to me why World War I started.
So can anybody explain if slavery was the root cause of the American Civil War?
My Wikipedia link (pls give better): en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 12-1-2010 by halfoldman]




posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
It was as much about slavery as the Iraq war was about oil.

The federal government didnt like anyone questioning it and 600,000 people were killed and whole cities burned to the ground so today we beg it to recognize our personal relationships and vote in droves to have it take more and more of our money and property from us so it can rampage across the globe imposing it's grand image.

Lincoln was a tyrant as was every monster to hold that office before him and all those after him.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

So then why or how did it start? What was being questioned, or was it just someIlluminati plan that needed a reason to come to fruition?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The civil war was, plain and simply, about Lincoln not allowing part of the union to secede. Slavery and the such were the reasons they wanted to secede, but the actual war was about keeping them from doing so(which, technically, is unconstitutional. Course, Lincoln more or less rolled the constitution up and smoked it, so.......)



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


The civil war was about States' rights, and how much power the Federal government has. The southern states were to secede, but Lincoln didn't want that, so they went to war, and during the war, they brought up slavery as propaganda.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
As I understand it [like you I have researched the conflict] I understood it was all about a revolt against taxes and laws imposed on southern states by the then government.

Slavery was one of the many issues that the war was supposedly fought about but in all honesty, from what I have managed to read about it, their emmancipation made very little difference to the average black man.

Here's another interesting thought for you, I believe that the South 'won' the war, simply because Lee inflicted more casualties on the north. The following websites make very interesting reading and have many original photographs.

www.civilwar.com...

www.mikelynaugh.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
This is a good question, and it shows some intelligence that you question the given PC for the war. Lincoln used slavery as a convenient excuse, that is all. The north was all about manufacturing and rural pursuits. The south was heavily into plantations and growing. Two different economies and two different mindsets. I am not well informed about these matters, but I understand that the South pulling out of the Union was the predominant reason. Legally, constitutionally, they had every right to. And legally, the martial law was never recinded; it is still in force but not used, for now.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
reply to post by halfoldman
 


The civil war was about States' rights, and how much power the Federal government has. The southern states were to secede, but Lincoln didn't want that, so they went to war, and during the war, they brought up slavery as propaganda.


Yes sir there you go right there is the starting point for more research, that is a truthful statement. I dont care much for wickedpedia, to easy to access and edit, dig in on the subject, you'll be pretty amazed at what you find out, just how many other countries were involved and how they were involved. Star for you.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


The Civil war was an old revolution against some of the Free Masons controlling the Union.

Slavery was not the main issue. Lincoln wanted to keep the country together mostly that was his main goal.

When war occurs you need a place to get money to pay for guns swords and paying your soldiers to fight.

So Lincoln did what most presidents do, he borrowed lots of money to pay for the war.

When the war was finished and Lincoln won, he was going to pay back the people he borrowed the money from with the Green Backs Paper money backed by gold or silver. I believe it was gold, but I am unsure.

So to keep the country in Debt they killed Lincoln and the people were screwed without even knowing it.

Then the last president that tried to get rid of our debt, JFK was assassinated cause he was trying to do the same thing as Lincoln.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
reply to post by halfoldman
 


The civil war was about States' rights, and how much power the Federal government has. The southern states were to secede, but Lincoln didn't want that, so they went to war, and during the war, they brought up slavery as propaganda.


Yes sir there you go right there is the starting point for more research, that is a truthful statement. I dont care much for wickedpedia, to easy to access and edit, dig in on the subject, you'll be pretty amazed at what you find out, just how many other countries were involved and how they were involved. Star for you.


And let's not forget the Russian Tsar(his name escapes me right now) who threatened both france and england, saying that if they involved themselves in favor of the south, he would consider it an act of war.

he then backed up his threat by sending parts of his fleet to the east and west coasts.

Not to mention the fact that lincoln was in a virtual war with the banking industry-many speculate that Lincolns refusal to re-charter the federal bank charter to the rothschilds was the true catalyst that started the war.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quickfix
reply to post by halfoldman
 


The Civil war was an old revolution against some of the Free Masons controlling the Union.

Slavery was not the main issue. Lincoln wanted to keep the country together mostly that was his main goal.

When war occurs you need a place to get money to pay for guns swords and paying your soldiers to fight.

So Lincoln did what most presidents do, he borrowed lots of money to pay for the war.
When the war was finished and Lincoln won, he was going to pay back the people he borrowed the money from with the Green Backs Paper money backed by gold or silver. I believe it was gold, but I am unsure.

So to keep the country in Debt they killed Lincoln and the people were screwed without even knowing it.

Then the last president that tried to get rid of our debt, JFK was assassinated cause he was trying to do the same thing as Lincoln.


Not entirely true. lincoln tried to borrow the money, and the world bank(not their name back then) offered him intereswt rates of 25% and up. He refused and started printing his own money to pay for the war.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war"-Lincoln



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Wow, that is all so interesting, and much of it overlaps! Here in South Africa the few who persued history only remember that it had something to do with "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and the "underground railway".
Strangely they had an insert on the History Channel about how the Statue of Liberty supposedly celebrated the end of slavery. Yet in the UNICEF book: "The Sun in Myth and Art" (Madanjeet Singh) it claims that the distinctive seven rays on the crown are the sign typical of Mithras. Well just a thought, keep them coming please.



[edit on 12-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The North American Civil War

The above link leads to an opinion piece by Karl Marx. I can not say that I completely agree with his conclusions. It is interesting however to note how people in other nations saw things.

As I read more of his articles on the war I must admit he makes many good points. His major failing is that he seems to seek absolution for the North. In all of his writings -that I have read- he makes it appear as if the South was involved in one of the greatest conspiracies of all time. In his opinion it was a convoluted conspiracy to take over 3/4 of the continent. Thus making it safe for slavery in nearly every corner of America.

This misses the fact that slaves were still in service in Northern states during the war and no attempt was made to emancipate them from their bonds.

The civil war is an interesting topic that can be debated from many angles. My question is this; if we can not agree on the history of the civil war how can we agree on the history of Rome, China or the Mayans?



[edit on 12-1-2010 by MikeNice81]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


The problem with marx is that many historians think he was fanning the flames of the war.

It is certain he had ties with funders of the war.

This makes it hard to take his word, as it may very well be nothing but propaganda.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I was not aware of that. Could you provide a link so that I could pursue that line of though in more detail?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
This all just makes me wonder how many wars in all of recorded history have been fought for purely moral reasons? Such as anti-slavery.

It makes the most sense that this was fought over sovereignty, like many have said. I also doubt Lincoln's intentions were pristine though I do believe he probably wanted to get rid of the debt.

Southerners living on farms/plantations didn't necessarily have the best lives but it had to have been better than war.

I also don't remember what ratio of southerners were volunteers or paid (very little), but there were also slaves who fought for the south.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
The US Civil War can be traced back to the Mexican War. After winning this conflict it opened up new territories...would they be slave or free? After almost starting the war 10 years early, the "Great Compromise of 1850" stated that all states below a certain parallel, can't remember, were to be slave, all above to be free...to maintain balance of legislative power in Congress.(Please forgive me, writing this off top of my head)
By 1856-57, Missourri was a state and Kansas Territory was to be the new state. Well, since Missourri was above this parallell , there was renewed contoversy about free or slave state. The border wars broke out there and "Kansas,Bloody Kansas" came to be.
By 1960, slavery was a political hot potato spurred on by the sensational book'Uncle tom's Cabin" which portrayed the terrible plight of slaves...in both the South and the NORTH.
Further, tariffs, export/import taxes which were meant to help the Northern States conversely hurt the Southern states in trade with England and France. This created much resentment in the South, and many felt (Kinda like now) that the federal government was overstepping it's Constitutional limits and interferring in the business of the states...ie States Rights. One of which was Slavery.
Many in the South felt the Federal government had it in for the south and if the benign President Buchannan was replaced with Abe Lincoln, then the full weight of the US government would weigh down on the South and its way of life.
After Lincoln won the election in fall 1860, 7 Southern states met in Montgomery, Alabama and formed the Confederate States of America. From the beginning, it was primarily a political and economic decision built on free foreign trade, states rights to self determination, slavery being an integral part as it was a free labor source and the basis for so much agrarian wealth in Dixie.
By April 1861, Lincoln was in office and trying to organize a response to this secessionist movement, which had grown full blown because Pres.Buchannan had done nothing. After the firings on Fort Sumter in SC Lincoln saw armed revolt, and as the 7 Southern states seized US armories, forts, logistics, naval and supply yards he called for the neighboring states to mobilize its militias to put down the rebellion and restore order. This played into the fears of those Southern states that had hesitated joining the Confederacy, and not wanting to shoot down their own countrymen of like mind and spirit... they too joined the CSA.
Obviously, entire volumes have been written on this subject and this is the breifest of narratives.
As for the idea of conspiracy or outside influence, I do find it suspect that the Rothchilds heirs left Germany and one son set up a bank in England loaning to the CSA, and the other set up a bank in NY and loaned to the USA.
Please accept my apologies for any oversight as this was written off the cuff...



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 

Proposed Marxism also had ideological stakes in slavery either way. The fact is that most European factory workers in the Industrial Revolution were treated like slaves. The South made certain provisions to make slavery more palatable, mainly those concerning the feeding and housing of slaves. In many cases this meant slaves had to be provided for by their owners, which arguably made their de facto treatment better than the workers in Dickensian Europe.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Abraham Lincoln did not start the war with the goal of abolishing slavery. About halfway through the war, he decided that the only way to win the war was to free the slaves. But slavery certainly was the main issue from the very beginning, even though freeing the slaves didn't come until halfway through the war.

Slavery was not the direct cause of the civil war, but it WAS indirectly the cause of the civil war. What directly caused the war was the Secession of the South, justified by Senator John Calhoun's idea of State's Rights. State's Rights was not the cause of the Civil War, it was only justification.

The real reason why the South wanted to secede was the Free State, Slave State Issue. In 1854 Congress thought they had solved the problem with the Kansas-Nebraska Act which stated that all new states would use popular sovereignty to decide if it would become a Slave or Free State. Popular Sovereignty was when the people of the state would all vote on whether to make the state free or slave.

When Kansas attempted to vote on becoming a Free or Slave state, people from Nebraska would come over to Kansas just to vote to swing the vote a certain way and then go back to Nebraska. This caused outrage from both sides, notably John Brown, who went around killing slave supporters.

The economy of the industrial North was also much more productive than the rural South, and there were many more Southerners migrating North than Northerners migrating South. Then, when Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, the South, feeling politically powerless, and losing citizens to migration, seceded from the Union.

So yes, slavery 100% was the issue.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I have a book that says Lincoln outlawed/helped outlaw slavery because slavery/the spread of slavery in turn increases the # of blacks. He didn't want more blacks. He did it to "ensure the survival of the white race." America was made to continue white prosperity, large numbers of blacks (slavery, spreading of slavery) threatened that.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join