Was the American Civil War really about slavery?

Where di dyou get the idea that slavery is rife in Africa? Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Anyway now you mention it the cause of most wars are obscure and now you mention it I don't know what caused the American civil war. I will see if Wiki has an answer but rest assured that slavery was not the (real) reason.

T

reply to post by jmotley


You Sir make a lot of sense. Breaking up the union would be grounds for some to have a civil war. It is still a difficult thing to piece together the real economic reasons for a war. Yet a Civil wall is the most horrible option to expose a country to.Wehn it comes to the causes of war I take an ecomonic view. We have the story of "Captain Jenkin's ear" that causes a war in Europe. More BS.

T

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Tiger5]

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.

Ahhhh, I see a mind unchained from CNN, ABC, Fox, BBC you are in the minority on here. Yes, show me a war, ANY war and I'll show you Private bankers setting up new business interests, moving their corp shares around (because there are no banks that don't win), removing and redefining country boundries/laws in preperation for the next stage in their Global enslavement. They are almost there just one move tiny push and we will all hand over our last shred of personal freedom's.

It wasn't about slavery. The Union spread and advertised the slavery propaganda for one HUGE reason, to keep England out of the war. England was supporting the South in weapons and ammo, (see Whitworth Rifle), and were in talks of sending troops to support the South.

The north knew that England couldn't or wouldn't associate itself with a slave nation or fight on behave of slavery, so they did it to keep England out of the war.


General Longstreet knew this and said, "We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Ft. Sumter."

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.

Exactly so. Slavery was used much like anti Semitism is used today. Then came along the "new" 13th Amendment, a supposed way to integrate former slaves into American society, but it ended up making every American have the same status as the former slaves...we were all made into "citizens."
After the war, States were prevented from ever doing direct business with each other, or from confederating into a new Statehood or Nation. America, through the banks, became thereafter a corporation.

Abe was never concerned about slavery. He created the emancipation proclamation for merely political purposes. Such as destabilizing the south and their slave economy.

Originally posted by mlmijyd

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.

Ahhhh, I see a mind unchained from CNN, ABC, Fox, BBC you are in the minority on here. Yes, show me a war, ANY war and I'll show you Private bankers setting up new business interests, moving their corp shares around (because there are no banks that don't win), removing and redefining country boundries/laws in preperation for the next stage in their Global enslavement. They are almost there just one move tiny push and we will all hand over our last shred of personal freedom's.

Hello, and nice talking with you!

I have had the best education that anyone could get and from the greatest teacher. It is a main reason I know so much. I have yet to see a wiser man or women in the world. Anyone that can claim otherwise is a fool by comparison to this man. His concepts and theories are even greater then Stephen Hawking. Even though the man may not be well known. beat him in is spirituality, which even then is still only theoretical

The tiny little push that is holding the bankers back from civil war in the USA is what the wise man put up to hold the bankers off. Everyone can see it in the news and it is talked about everyday I am sure. It is as you all see as the bailout package.

The purpose for the bailout was to save some of the peoples lives. Not everyone can be saved, only some. I don't know who will be saved, or if even the wise man and his family/relatives/close-ones will succeed in whatever they wish to achieve.

All I know is this is one hell of a bumpy ride and its just getting started.... x.x

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Quickfix]

Okay now. I come to this thread 2 years after it's fade, but I've recently been pursuing extensive research into the subject and wanted to rant my take, so I searched this thread. I apologize if any of these points were already touched upon, and I don't have exact dates, but here goes:

Slavery
I want to start by saying that I agree with slavery by no means. Regardless of the motivation behind it's banishment, it was definitely a good outcome.

While slavery was a huge issue leading up to the civil war, it was not a matter of whether slavery was moral or legal, instead it was about slaves being recognized as property when traveling from one state to another. Personal property is recognized and protected federally in the constitution. However, shortly before the war, recognition of slaves as property was made to be decided by the individual states. This angered the many southern folks of wealth who were able to travel between states because they were plantation owners and in turn slave owners, who probably preferred to bring along slaves for things like carrying their luggage and other manual labor that they were too lazy and unaccustomed to performing for themselves, which many were men of political power within the southern states, and thus I believe this was the main issue leading up to secession: state vs. federal power. As the constitution was not being upheld federally, I assume they said to hell with it and seceded.

Tariffs/Taxes

Tariffs on international trade were a major source of federal income in the 19th century. Many believe this was a major issue for the southern states leading to secession, as they provided 90% of the nation's cotton, which was a huge cash crop at the time. Northern states wanted higher tariffs, as they provided more industry than exports, and the Morrill Tariff was introduced as a bill in 1859. However, it was constantly blocked due to southern state holding dominance in congress. The Morrill Tariff was passed and enacted in 1861, after the 13 southern states had seceded and and thus forfeited their seats, giving inevitable dominance to the northern states. So while it was not an initial issue, it was a matter that spurred things along.

Fort Sumter

Ft. Sumter was among five seaside Union-held forts along the coasts of Confederate states in 1861, along with Ft Monroe on Chesapeake Bay in Hampton, VA, and Forts Pickens, Jefferson, and the yet-incomplete Fort Taylor, all three along the Gulf-coast of Florida. It is important to keep the Morrill Tariff in mind, as 4 of these forts, including Ft Sumter, were on important harbors of Confederate states. South Carolina was determined to uproot the Unions hold on Sumter, as it sits smack in the middle of Charleston Harbor. Two forts both north and south of Ft Sumter on the mainland coast were already state-held. SC sent multiple demands for the Union to vacate the fort, but I believe Lincoln had plans to hold it to help enforce Union rule on trade. SC took the first initiative, though, blockading the waterways surrounding the island fortress and blocking supplies. This still did not deter the Union presence, and they eventually opened cannon fire upon Sumter.
Get this, there were NO casualties besides 1 horse. I believe it was only intended to scare the Union presence into vacating the fort. They had it completely surrounded by two forts and a number of ships. Can you really believe they wouldn't have inflicted casualties if that was what they were intending??? Regardless, Lincoln got his panties in a wad and the Union amassing army moved to attempt to take the Confederate capital by force, and the first official human bloodshed of the Civil War was not until Bull Run. So did the Confederacy start the war??? You decide...

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, it's overrated, along with Lincoln and his morals. While it did put a limited ban on slavery, there were still Union states allowed slaves. It was merely one of many moves by Lincoln to weaken the Confederacy economically. Mary, his wife and First Lady, was the daughter of a wealthy banker and slave owner! There are also documents of Lincoln trying to have freed slaves deported to British colonies in latin america after the enactment of the Emancipation Proclamation. Through the war, which was a huge over-reaction and lacked but a speck of diplomacy, Lincoln expanded federal government to the point that the founding fathers probably turned a 540 in their graves. He created the DOA in 1862 and "revolutionized"(industrialized) agriculture, I assume in light of the manual working slaves being freed, instead of allowing the work to become paid jobs. I mean, there's pros and cons to the guy, but if I haven't made it clear, I think he's largely overrated.

reply to post by halfoldman


It was more about the oppression of North. I won't explain to you, but look into it really. not just Wackypedia. you will find a list of very funny things.
listverse.com...
i suggest you start with this.
And I'd like to point out one of them.

The confederate Congress specified that black soldiers were to receive the same pay as the white soldiers. The Union army’s black soldiers were paid less than the white soldiers. A black soldier in the Union army would have been paid $10 a month with a $3 clothing fee taken out, leaving the soldier with $7 a month. White soldiers were paid $13 a month and were not forced to pay a clothing allowance, which is almost twice as much as the black soldiers. By contrast the Confederate army paid their privates of both races $11/month until 1864. Equal pay for both races in the federal army did not come into effect until June 1864. The Confederate Army also authorized a salary for black musicians in 1862.

reply to post by Narcissous


Thank you for the link. Very interesting .

reply to post by halfoldman


so u claim people of the time of ww1 couldnt tell u why they warred and expect people in 2012 to tell u why there was a war some 200 years ago pertaining to the captivity of black persons and more. and u mention that criticizing black people is racist(trending within the wp sphere?). so u want to know what that everyone else who has access to the same information would tell u again? oh your a bigot also and your post should be refined or at least deleted.

reply to post by Ausar


Whoa. I think you misunderstand the guy. He said no one "outside" conspiracy could explain ww1 beginnings to him. Also, however reliable, it says he's from South Africa? Wouldn't that make him African? Who are you claiming he's bigoted towards? He said criticizing African culture can get you labeled a racist. And what's a wp sphere? wp = white people? If so, who's the bigot here again?

reply to post by Ausar

I couldn't get a single coherent point out of that post except that I'm a bigot.
But I expected that on p1 already from people who don't care about the suffering of black Africans, as long it's caused by other black Africans.
Now there's a label for people like that, but I'll stick to the T&C and the social graces, unlike you.

History is complex and has many explanations, as many of the people on this thread who contributed to the topic demonstrated.

Was the American Civil War really about slavery?

You will find as many views on this subject as the individuals you offer them.

Here's mine: The answer is Yes and No. The US Civil War was fought over slavery but it was not the only or even the largest contributing factor. The divisions between the north and south had been growing and festering for well over a decade. Trade tariff controls by the federal government and import quotas were very heavy movers.

When it comes to the issue of slavery, I will offer this:

>Lincoln was ready to allow slavery to stand so long as he could preserve the union.

>CSA Gen Robert E. Lee disliked the institution of slavery and predicted its demise long before the war.

>Most Confederate soldiers were poor dirt farmers who had never even seen a slave.

>Slave holding plantations were almost equally divided between being owned by southern and northern businesses. It was all about cheap (or free) labor and greed.

It is today VERY politically correct right now to assume that the Civil War was about slavery and nothing else. But the history is out there and for those who take the time to study, the truth is clear. Slavery was, is and always will be wrong. But in order to learn from our past, we have to be able to look at it honestly for ALL the lessons it gives... or we miss so much while focusing on so little that we learn nothing.

reply to post by halfoldman


There is not a simple answer here several factors led to the civil war and yes slavery was one of them just not for the reason people think.It starts in 1793 when Eli Whitney invents the cotton gin and cotton became very profitable.This starts the plantations in the south to move to producing cotton.Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery.Now the north moved into cities industrialized and was much more dependent on the government.These different economies caused divisions in the United States. In truth the south was financing the government through taxes. The federal government specifically started creating taxes to get more and more money from the south. When Alexander Hamilton was the United States Secretary of the Treasury he issued the Report on Manufactures, which reasoned that applying tariffs in moderation, in addition to raising revenue to fund the federal government, would also encourage domestic manufacturing and growth of the economy by applying the funds raised in part towards subsidies (called bounties in his time) to manufacturers. So now we set up a system where the south has money and sends there taxes to the government which is given to industries to prop up the North.

Then came the Tariff of 1824 increased tariffs in order to protect American industry in the face of cheaper imported commodities such as iron products, wool and cotton textiles, and agricultural goods from England. This tariff was the first in which the sectional interests of the North and the South truly came into conflict because the South advocated lower tariffs in order to take advantage of tariff reciprocity from England and other countries that purchased raw agricultural materials from the South.

In 1832 South Carolina made vague threats to leave the Union over the tariff issue. In 1833 tariffs were lowered to ease tensions between the North And the South. And by the 1850s the south gained greater influence and and managed to lower tariffs further. Irony is this only delayed the civil war.Today we recognize slavery as a moral issue. But in the early nineteenth century, it was seen as an economic issue first, moral issue second. A series of legislative actions, most notably the Missouri Compromise of 1820, had been enacted by Congress to put limits on the propagation of slavery, but compromise with northern and southern interests was always kept in mind. The South had an economic interest in the spread of slavery to the new territories so that new slave states could be created and the South's political influence would remain strong.The south feared if the north gained too much power they would tax the south into non existence and abolish slavery all together. The south saw this as unacceptable remember this is there entire economy.

Now the north wasnt upset by slavery there was a small group that were but they didnt have any control. The northern politicians became very upset with the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, sponsored by Democrat Stephen A. Douglas.The Kansas-Nebraska Act eliminated the old Missouri Compromise (which in 1820 had designated areas of the new territories in which slavery could and could not be introduced) and made it possible for slavery to be introduced in virtually any new territory.Although the majority of the American people-- including many moderate politicians like Abraham Lincoln--wanted to avoid Civil War and were content to allow slavery to die slowly as it was inevitable.However this act allowed new territories to decide there own fate and there was big money in cotton. This caused moderate politicians such as Abraham Lincoln to become active in the cause of fighting both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the spread of slavery.Now the south sees there taxes raised tariffs making it harder for them to sell cotton to world markets and politicians actively campaigning against there best interests. So to a southerner they attacked there economy and no longer having there best interests at heart and they start to succeed from the union.

Now the north couldn't loose the southern states they have been propping up the north.Even France realizes this that is why they backed the south during the war.Still alot of animosity between the french and the United States. So to make a long story short Lincoln had to go to war to prevent the United States from total destruction. But in doing so some people argue did more damage in the long run. I personally believe he had no choice.

In conclusion was it about slavery of course it was If there was no disagreement over the issue of slavery the South would not have seen a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." Was taxes involved of course. Wars are fought for 3 reasons money, land or power.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by halfoldman

 

.Although the majority of the American people-- including many moderate politicians like Abraham Lincoln--wanted to avoid Civil War...

I have to strongly disagree with you on Lincoln wanting to avoid war when he allowed Winfield Scott to order McDowell's advance on Manassas Junction. Before that, there were zero casualties on either side besides 4 Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, including one death, in an artillery accident while sounding the Union's evacuation after the bombardment was over. After Sumter, Lincoln called upon the authority of the Militia Act of 1792 to amass an army, but for a war he didn't want?

I was always led to believe that it was the rich Yorkshire mill owners who instigated the civil war in the states. At that point of time the UK mill owners, were the world leaders in production of cotton/wools. Then the southern states started to under cut them. They could afford to as they had slaves picking cotton for nothing.
Dr Wiberforce was a Yorkshire MP for Hull. He was the one that started all that free the slaves thing. He was also a very close friend of Sir Titus Salt and recieved funding from him. The mill owners helped to finance the Norths fight against the south.
It was all to do with the price of cotton. Not to free the slaves, but so that the rich could corner the market again.