The Civil War Was About Slavery, Seriously

Imagine if the 2nd amendment were repealed, and 30 states decided to secede from the United States. If the Federal government were willing, we would see a second terrible American Civil War.

That war would not be fought over the right to own guns; it would be fought over the right to self-governance. Just like the first Civil War.

Desire to enslave others is not what motivated the tens of thousands of men who fought and died for the south. 90% of them were too poor to even afford a slave. They fought because they considered secession to be a right constitutionally guaranteed to all states. Lincoln's use of military force to prevent South Carolina from seceding was as much an impetus for war as was the south's insistence on clinging to the inhumane practice of slavery.

a reply to: timequake

Lincoln had to hold together his coalition as well and had to measure his words.

If Lincoln had no interest in the moral issue of slavery, then why did he, personally and vigorously:

a) declare the Emancipation Proclamation in conquered rebel areas
b) fight for the 13th Amendment banning slavery and the 14th guaranteeing basic rights for all

Lincoln could have, in contrast:

c) acquiesced to Southern demands for return of all fugitive slaves
d) fought for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of slavery permanently

to keep the Union together.

He did not. Why was Lincoln elected? Why did no slave states vote for Lincoln? The answer is obvious.

However, the point was and still remains--even from the quotes you cited--that it was a struggle between Southern states and the federal government. It was about control.

Control of slavery, and nothing else.

Nothing else would cause people to go to war and with such animosity. No tax or tarriff dispute is anywhere near that potent.

Why was the admission of free vs slave states prior to Civil War so divisive? Because if there were enough free states they would eventually be sufficiently numerous to pass a Constitutional amendment to ban slavery, which is exactly what eventually happened.

Everybody knew slavery was vile and extremely profitable.

a reply to: mbkennel

Lincoln is also on record as saying that if he could have kept the Union together without freeing the slaves he would have. He simply was out to stop its spread, not end it. Southern reaction was that attempts to stop the spread of slavery would eventually lead to its end as they would lost their political clout and thus eventually lose their ability to defend it.

Political power games, the same as it was with the 3/5 compromise.

a reply to: mbkennel

Nothing else?

You wait. If the Feds overreach on guns or religion either one, you may see a return.

Saying the Civil War was about slavery is an oversimplification that doesn't come close to explaining the whole story.

You're ignoring all of the other factors at play because the history books want everyone to think it's an open-shut case of "The South wanted slaves and the North said no, so they had a war... the North won and freed the slaves. Yay northern states! Boo racist southerners!"

If you honestly think that the Union soldiers were "bravely fighting to free black slaves", you're an ignoramus. Same as someone who thinks our fighting men and women went to Iraq to "free the Iraqis from Saddam." It's a warrior's job to fight. It's the politicians' job to justify it.

originally posted by: mbkennel

Why did no slave states vote for Lincoln? The answer is obvious.

Is it because he was a vicious killer who would team up with the Jews to send troops to burn their homes, rape their women and destroy their territory with historically unprecedented ferocity?

originally posted by: ColeYounger

originally posted by: Phototropic
a reply to: ColeYounger

Why are banks ever interested in the outcomes of war?

Money and power.

Not peoples' rights or freedoms.
Not "democracy".
Not morality.
Not slavery.

SLAVERY is about MONEY! Stealing the labor and lives of others for PROFIT.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: mbkennel

Lincoln is also on record as saying that if he could have kept the Union together without freeing the slaves he would have. He simply was out to stop its spread, not end it. Southern reaction was that attempts to stop the spread of slavery would eventually lead to its end as they would lost their political clout and thus eventually lose their ability to defend it.

Political power games, the same as it was with the 3/5 compromise.

Source please.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
Imagine if the 2nd amendment were repealed, and 30 states decided to secede from the United States. If the Federal government were willing, we would see a second terrible American Civil War.

That war would not be fought over the right to own guns; it would be fought over the right to self-governance. Just like the first Civil War.

Desire to enslave others is not what motivated the tens of thousands of men who fought and died for the south. 90% of them were too poor to even afford a slave. They fought because they considered secession to be a right constitutionally guaranteed to all states. Lincoln's use of military force to prevent South Carolina from seceding was as much an impetus for war as was the south's insistence on clinging to the inhumane practice of slavery.

They fought because then as now they were poor and needed wages. That's actually the motivation for a majority of rank and file. It may suit their egos to say they fight on principal (and some do) but it's usually about lack of other alternatives to feed themselves.

a reply to: mbkennel


If you read what I wrote, then you would have seen that I acknowledged that President Lincoln detested slavery. The point was, notwithstanding his feelings on the subject, he was willing to let it continue if it would bring the union back together. What is also telling is despite this sentiment, the South continued to fight. Furthermore, the emancipation proclamation was a call of sorts to black slaves to rise up, and only applied to rebel states. States loyal to the Union were allowed to keep their slavery institutions intact.


you have the control aspect backwards: to control slavery--and the South's cotton trade with England against federal government trade restrictions , and cheap labor--was to control the Southern states.

a reply to: FyreByrd

originally posted by: ketsuko a reply to: mbkennel Lincoln is also on record as saying that if he could have kept the Union together without freeing the slaves he would have. He simply was out to stop its spread, not end it. Southern reaction was that attempts to stop the spread of slavery would eventually lead to its end as they would lost their political clout and thus eventually lose their ability to defend it. Political power games, the same as it was with the 3/5 compromise. Source please.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

Most white southerners did not own slaves, these were the plantation owners. the poor whites actually had to go out on runaway slave patrol even though they owned none. We could also go into the whole thing about the free blacks in the south who owned slaves. So a bunch of these non-slave owning poor whites went and fought a war to protect slavery? a practice that suppressed their own wages and cost them many a night chasing down slaves as was their duty?

Slavery was an issue as were many other things.

Nothing else would cause people to go to war and with such animosity. No tax or tarriff dispute is anywhere near that potent.

taxes won't cause people to go to war? american revolutionary war.
What made it an actual war was Lincoln's bait at Fort Sumner. He just wanted a proper casus belli. Same as so many other US wars, baiting the soon to be victim to give justification. As has been stated to what actually went on at fort sumner you bet them confederates were all pissed off. They knew what happened, while the north put a spin on it as does current history books.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Are you kidding me. Most of the world is not included in world history classes in school. The teachings go like this
1. mesopotamia: sumerians-->babylon-->assyria, Levant
2. egypt: way too much time spent on them bc kids love pyramids
3. greece: Athens, Sparta, macedonia: Alexander, Persia
4. Rome + spread of christianity
5. Byzantine Empire + spread of Islam/Turks
6. Dark ages: France and England
7. renaissance 8. Columbus/New World 9. Pilgrims and indians 10. revolutionary war
11. Industrial revolution: Britain + US 12. civil war 13. Gilded age 14. WW1 15. WW2: Hitler 16. Cold War
17. American exceptionalism

A lot is missed out on, like all of east asia. Heck even important countries in europe like austria-hungary are not even mentioned until WW1.

The american education system is meant to keep its people in the dark.

The civil war for the average low educated southener was for "the cause", a way of Life. Slavery and class distinction was a part of that way of life. As with all wars, the politicians and bankers turn "causes" into money making schemes.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
Imagine if the 2nd amendment were repealed, and 30 states decided to secede from the United States. If the Federal government were willing, we would see a second terrible American Civil War.

That war would not be fought over the right to own guns; it would be fought over the right to self-governance. Just like the first Civil War.

Desire to enslave others is not what motivated the tens of thousands of men who fought and died for the south. 90% of them were too poor to even afford a slave. They fought because they considered secession to be a right constitutionally guaranteed to all states. Lincoln's use of military force to prevent South Carolina from seceding was as much an impetus for war as was the south's insistence on clinging to the inhumane practice of slavery.

They fought because then as now they were poor and needed wages. That's actually the motivation for a majority of rank and file. It may suit their egos to say they fight on principal (and some do) but it's usually about lack of other alternatives to feed themselves.

Tens of thousands of them were DRAFTED into the fight---just like all the wars that followed until the hippies got the draft abolished.
If you weren't rich enough to buy a substitute or pay a bribe to the government, you had no choice except jail.
If you are going to argue about history you really should read about the subject beyond your high school textbook. I don't suppose it had anything about the New York City Draft riots?

Yes the Civil War's primary reason was Slavery but the North did many other things to make the South upset. I'm kind of a broken record on it but the North raising tariffs on Cotton exports so the South would stop trading with Britain was a huge issue.

Really it just came down to the South getting fed up with the North telling them what to do. The issue at that point in time happened to be Slavery. From my view the Civil War represents the victory of the Federalists over the Democratic Republicans. Central government won over States rights.

Besides the terrible travesty that happened in SC. I want to know why people care so much about a nation that existed for 4 years and fought mostly on defense. We completely ignore the politics 80 years prior and the crimes the North committed in subduing the Confederacy.

I think the emancipation of slaves was a great victory and cause, but the North wasn't without its faults.

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
You are correct.

Another one is the "Heritage not Hate" debate. That's hogwash too. The flag is an absolute symbol of hate and racism.

No it isn't. To some people, yes it is.

The flag itself is not even the actual flag of the confederate states. It was the BATTLE flag of the confederate army.

To a lot of people 150years ago that flag was one of military honor, and a symbol that you yourself fought for, and/or members of your family DIED for! It was VERY personal to almost everyone in the south, more so than even vet's today feel about the US flag, or maybe even a unit insignia, or POW-MIA.


With that said, just like words, physical things can take on a different meaning if collectively a large number of people understand them to mean something else. This is an interesting issue, because I feel like we should fight against human ignorance dictating how we feel about something (example: "A chink in your armor" is not a racist phrase!). However, what matters is the spirit of how the flag is flown, by whom, and under what circumstances.

The flag never should have been flown at the south Carolina capitol, and ESPECIALLY not with a directive that it doesn't fly at half-mast, even while the US flag is beside it at half-mast...

Furthermore, those who erected the Confederate Army flag at the SC capitol in the 60's did it as a big F-YOU to the civil rights movement, and to antagonize southern blacks. It should have come down a LONG time ago!

It 'was' about slavery.

It was not to 'free' the slaves but to enslave the remaining americans.

There was a prior 13th amendment that was conveniently misplaced around the time of the civil war. (I do not have the research at and but anyone can find it with a simple internet search if you wish to)

Freedom as we know it died at Appomattox and we have been under a tightening state of martial law ever since.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Before wading into a historical thread to spout off inaccuracies and demand sources that have already been provided (and can be found with the tiniest bit of effort), why not at least read some of the other replies? Even better, research the topic.

Both the Union and the Confederacy had to deal with rampant desertion. One reason for that was unpaid or delayed wages. To say that Confederate soldiers were mercenaries who fought because they were paid is patently absurd.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Astute observation.

Very, very few soldiers would wade into battle without compensation of some sort. No one works for free, unless they are a fool.