it was about slavery...nothing more.

It really isn't hard to understand unless people REFUSE to.

Their argument gets rejected out of hand.

...it becomes very apparent that SLAVERY was the cause and concern.

Last edited Tue Aug 15, 2017, 11:32 AM - Edit history (1)

leaving the union to maintain their system of enslavement.

I give the poor southerners who fought and lost their lives a pass to a certain extent. They probably couldn't read and easily fell for the states' rights tripe the rich plantation owners handed them.

But today, no excuse for that kind of ignorance.

...the overreaching, underpinning and in-the-fucking open reason for the Civil War WAS SLAVERY. Sure it was "state's rights"... the right to own slaves.

Last edited Tue Aug 15, 2017, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

for generations.

So someone has to come in and tell us how the South isn't a problem.

Except, no South, no Trump, no GOP majority.

I was fed this in Illinois in the 60s. Didn't buy it, argued the point, got a lousy grade and some sort of black mark for attitude.

(wink)

"Explain how the civil war was not just about slavery"

To answer correctly, you had to regurgitate a bunch of BS from the textbook.

not just about slavery.

In the South it was not about slavery at all!

The original "states rights" issue was whether or not newly created states had the "right" to allow white men to own black men.

Lincoln ran on a platform specifically stating he wanted no new slave states or territories, that slavery would be confined to the areas that currently had it in the South.

The idea that the war was not about slavery was invented by Jefferson Davis and other leaders. Davis specifically gave numerous speeches trying to keep his people maintaining the war effort. The speeches made hay of the idea that the South was fighting for liberty against an oppressive Northern regime.

It is vomit-inducing to consider the fact that Jefferson Davis, leader of the slave states, would invoke the concept of "liberty" in public. I like to point that out to anyone who tries to make the case that the war was about liberty.

"Lincoln ran on a platform specifically stating he wanted no new slave states or territories, that slavery would be confined to the areas that currently had it in the South. "

If you delve a little deeper into the reason you come up with greed.. Cotton growing sucks the nutrients out of the soil and plantations needed new DIRT to grow more cotton as the soil got depleted, so as to make more money.. A lot of money. So by Lincoln denying expansion of slavery into new states he stopped the Plantation monopoly getting more dirt and more wealth... As soon as Lincoln got elected the writhing was on the wall and the rich southern plantation owners wanted out..
What I thought was ironic was that plantation owners and their families were EXEMPT from fighting the very war they needed to propagate their lifestyle... Amazing...
I think they pushed this states rights thing to validate sending young soldiers to die for their "cause".
I mean would you go die for some rich guy, so he could live high on the hog, or die for some theory that you are being victimized because your state can't do what it wants...
Which perspective would young impressionable minds buy into..
m

They would go on and on about freedom and liberty, and denounce the tyranny of the federal government (despite controlling it for a sizable majority of the pre-Civil War US history), while in nearly the same breath maintaining that white supremacy and slavery was not only necessary and natural, but in fact highly moral.

The so-called honorable Robert E Lee was a slave holder and a remarkably cruel one to boot from what I have just recently read.

They fought to enslave their fellow man for profit. I had ancestors that fought the slavers in the Civil war.

"States rights" was the right of individual states to permit slavery. The country didn't go to war with itself over other issues.

A biscuit recipe which the Confederates refused to share with the Yankees?

Beyond the state's"right" to own slaves, it may have been a secondary issue, but the primary cause was slavery -- They've been spouting this shit for years.

I didn't get free of it until I was a freshman in college, when I read Kenneth Stampp's brilliant "A Peculiar Institution" in a history class. Amazing that the moronic propaganda still hangs on, sometime on threads here at DU.

A war when I worked in Georgia. Isnt this also what the mayor of Charlottesville is referring to when he says telling the truth?

Of course not. So the Civil War was all about slavery...period.

That was excellent!

But that was a good one.

in newly annexed territories and new states. Slavers were adamantly opposed to the right of new states to make slavery illegal, even if the federal government stayed out of it. The writing was on the wall on that one--an existential issue for them.

A revisionist term, you might say, for the Civil War...I heard this on a guided tour of Charleston, South Carolina several years ago.

ALL about slavery.

That was the particular "state right" they were fighting for.

And I say that as someone born and raised in the deep south.

Mississippi"s Declaration of Secession --


"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

"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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. . . . . .
________________


The other states aren't quite as direct, but slavery is mentioned numerous times and it's clear the war was over the right to own, beat and rape human beings.

that wanted slavery had not succeeded. So, it really was about slavery.

At least they did for years.
My spouse is 58 and she grew up in Texas. They taught the states rights bullshit.

along with this accompanying explanation

"The iceberg that sank the freedoms of Americans in 1861. You see it wasn't the ice that you could see that caused the attack on our southern Titanic it was the truths hidden beneath the waves that you couldn't see."





The nephew is a flaming racist and Trump supporter. He calls himself--and insists his family call him--the General. Never served a day in his life, but has participated in Civil War Re-enactments for years and years. His daughter home schools four kids. The 4th kid (a girl) they went to China to adopt--because they obviously couldn't adopt a local black child who would undoubtedly be much dumber than an Asian kid, according to their stereotypes of race.

My husband has been hugely conflicted about this family--the nephew's mother is my husband's half-sister--for years. His sister basically rescued him
from a horrible home situation when he was a teenager (his mother was an alcoholic who eventually drank herself to death). So, on the one hand he remembers his sister as basically saving his life, and yet her son is a horrible racist. The nephew has been a Limbaugh fan for years and years, too. Got his father hooked on listening to Limbaugh.

Or General Disaster or General Fuckup.

Maybe even General Pain in the Ass.

Tarriffs on cotton picked by slaves
states rights to allow slavery
culture war against slavery
northern oppression against slavery
free market to sell slaves and cotton


Got it? Slavery was only the tip of the ice burg.

to condemn, judge, or persecute someone else who doesn't agree with your religious view by denying them their civil rights. In other words, don't restrict MY right to deny you YOUR rights.

Given by Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens on March 21, 1861. Read the full text HERE

And here's one of many money quotes:

that the northern states were making economic policies that made it difficult for southern farmers to export their agricultural products.

What they don't get is that the agricultural product was cotton picked by slave labor.

Also, much from Europe. They had no problems exporting their products.
Read "The Half Has Never Been Told" by Edward Baptist for a detailed history of slavery and interactions with economics.

the argument is about the northern merchants keeping southerners from importing goods by imposing tariffs, and that northern textiles were using imported cotton. I am not saying it is correct I am saying that people make the arguments that the war was over economics, not slavery, but the irony is that the economics they are arguing are rooted in slavery.

It would make no sense for anyone to import cotton from anywhere else. Slave drivers would just whip the slaves harder to make them work faster. Cotton growers in India and Egypt just couldn't compete, and didn't become really successful until the Civil War stopped exports of American cotton.

The North had Wage Slavery vs. the South's physical slavery. It is interesting to note that following the Civil War, the Northern's version (the modern version) of wage slavery became the norm and was considered socially acceptable at that point.

Basically, removing slavery was an economic deal breaker for the south. Remember, it was 2 1/2 centuries of slavery that catapulted the new world into a status of wealth and power... primarily the southern states. The southern state economies were thought to be completely reliant on slavery and they saw the loss of slavery as a crippling move by the central government (up north). Essentially, the industrial revolution rendered the absolute necessity of Slavery obsolete and allowed the north to also produce it's unique exports at a comparable revenue.

So for the south, slavery and economics was one in the same and the government "up north" was making decisions that were not in the best interest of the southern economy. It's not terribly dissimilar from the King of England levying unfair taxes on colonies from across the ocean. I can see both sides of the argument that the civil was or wasn't completely about slavery...

Then there's, the 1863 emancipation proclamation, which came about at the midpoint of the war (1861-1865) economically broke the South's back and resulted in their in ability to continue making war. It was as much a strategic decision against the southern war machine as it was a humanitarian decision to free southern slaves. Probably the biggest win-win presidential decision of all time - end slavery and your enemy's cash flow.

As written in the states' explanations of why they withdrew from the Union.

This is all quoted at great length in "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader", by James Loewen. I think it's out of print, but you can still get it through Amazon.

30,000 or so extra uniforms which the other southern states had begged for during the civil war (I may wrong on the 30,000 number, but it was a large number)...state of Georgia invoked states' rights back at the rest of the confederacy and didn't provide the desperately needed uniforms...but kept for its own militia.

Had nothing to do w/ states' rights, but more or less an attempt to preserve a lifestyle and the awful practice of slavery, nothing else. Traitors, all of them.

in defense of anything worthwhile. I'm 64, and I've never heard people argue States Rights for anything but reasons of assholiness.

Never.

and not at all about slavery. They seem to have access to a time machine to make cause and effect switch places ...

That works in mathematics but not when dealing with humanity. To say the war was only because of slavery would be to say that WW I was caused by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand when it was the trigger. If not for it something else would've upset the precarious balance of powers in Europe- war was inevitable.
A few of the causes
Slavery
States rights
Industry vs Agriculture
It all goes to the beginning. I think the southern slave states only ratified the U.S. Constitution reluctantly. They much preferred the older Articles of Confederation which enshrined states rights. That would be a reason for naming the "new" country, the Confederacy. This venn diagram might help to make it more clear. There were fundamental differences from day one and they still exist today. I believe that the CONservatives are moving towards enshrining the Articles of Confederation into law again. This could be the result of a constitutional constitution.

Lived in Northern New York State, which means that not only did I rarely see a black person but I never saw "Colored" or "Whites Only" signs either. The Civil War Centennial was when the revisionism began, because all of a sudden we were being told that it wasn't about slavery, oh no, it was all about states rights. I was very puzzled by that, because it ran counter to all I thought I knew about the war, but I was too young to make a cogent argument against the revisionist thinking. But the claim that the war was benignly about states rights became entrenched then. That needs to stop. Or at the very least, states rights = slavery needs to be made very clear.

I once heard Ken Burns talk about being somewhere in the Deep South giving a talk related to his amazing series "The Civil War", and said that he was asked (and I think the venue was a church) if he thought the right side had won the war. He said yes, it did, and needed to be escorted out.

We are now more than 150 years after that war. I honestly don't understand when it's not clearly understood that those who fought against their country were traitors, pure and simple. Displaying the Confederate flag should be a crime. Supporting those who plotted and did their best to overthrow the legitimate government ought to carry fines and jail time. Same for displaying symbols of the Nazis and their regime.

I learned American History in Mississippi. It was a long time ago and I know they didn't flagrantly say it was not about slavery but they did emphasize the economics and the disregard for the cotton economy, which kept the country afloat. There was a sense of victimhood and virtually no emphasis on the horrors of slavery.

racist gun nut from Alabama who was elected by the NRA membership.

I've gone back and read the documents and speeches of the time. You can find a ton of stuff on Google Docs.

Read the succession statements of each state.

It was definitely about slavery. Approximately 1/2 of all capital held by Southerners was in enslaved people.

It was about money which at the time equaled slavery.

In the displays that talk about "causes of the war", states' rights are given a great deal of space. Slavery, not so much. It's a nice museum, but it is pretty weird to see the revisionist history on display as fact.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

about some "foreigners telling us what to do". The south did not see the slaves as people, they were property. Much like the fight in areas on maltreatment of animals. Slaves (and poor people) simply were not people. The U.S. constitution did not see them as people (black or white) who were not land owners. Since women could not own land, women were not people either.

You can still see the same attitude of men that despise the law throwing men in jail for beating their farm animals or pets or their wives or children.

The person who is for corporal punishment also seems to have no problem beating their wives, or animals. You can see that person as a policeman who beats prisoners. That same person used to beat tenant farmers and work hands. In the north many years ago with children working in factories it was the foreman who beat the workers.

For a very narrow period of time a person beating another was frowned upon. It is not that way now and it has to be frowned upon again.

they are about slavery. Period.

JMHO, but rather than remove the statue of Gen Lee and renaming the park, a fair compromise might have been to rededicate the park to celebrate the contributions the Lee family made to America as one of our founding families and as signers of the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps additional statuary could have been added of other famous Lees such as Richard Henry and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee. While RE Lee is most remembered as head of CSA army, prior to that fateful decision, he had a distinguished military career.

FTR, Josh Marshall has a post up at TPM with dates of when the statues were erected. The ones he cited dated to the late 1800's. The Lee Charlottesville statue dates to circa 1917.

A poster mentioned the Articles of Succession which is what I meant.

It got out of hand, brother against brother. SC was about slavery.

Roughly 1,264,000 American soldiers have died in the nation's wars--620,000 in the Civil War and 644,000 in all other conflicts. It was only as recently as the Vietnam War that the amount of American deaths in foreign wars eclipsed the number who died in the Civil War.

Slaves outnumbered whites

Taught by a published history professor with a good reputation. He argued vehemently that the war was not about slavery. He highlighted the race riots of the north and the considerations made in Washington of repatriating slaves to Africa. It was about conflicting economies, he argued.

But again, this college was in New Orleans and it was the early 80's when that revisionist history was popular for some reason.

Goes to show you that history cannot be separated from feelings. Many southerners want to believe they come from a proud "heritage" and I can't blame their reluctance to admit that their "heritage" was corrupted by an evil institution. But it seems obvious to me that slavery, including it's expansion into the territories, absolutely was the spark that started the war. Lincoln was tied to the abolitionist movement before his election, and his election was the beginning of the war.

The South's economy was dependent on slaves.

btw, the whole "carpet bagger" thing was B.S. The South made out very well from reconstruction.

They talk about liberal colleges and universities indoctrinating students. But this false history they teach is indoctrination. Then they saw the economy was the cause of the Civil War but neglect to mention what it was based on. They also mention state's rights but don't speak of why they emphasize state's rights or at least the primary motivation for focusing on state's rights. It's ridiculous the ignorance and hate that is perpetuated.

...which gave slave hunters the right to come to any state and seize "runaway slaves" on any pretext, or no pretext. Many free blacks were kidnapped, and forced into slavery. The people of the North despised these laws, and often hampered the slave hunters. The Underground Railroad was one of the responses to it. The South didn't care about the rights of states over this...

Confederate apologists like to cast the war as the states against a long-simmering resistance against a hostile central government, but the truth is that Southern politicians dominated both Congress and the Presidency for a sizable majority of the Pre-Civil War history. The Fugitive Slave Laws came about because they wanted to use the power and authority of the federal government to go against the wishes of the free states, and had the power to do so. They only turned against the federal government when it became clear that they weren't going to be in charge anymore.

On top of that, if you read speeches and documents from the period leading up to the war, it's obvious that the Southern elite was furious that most of the Northern States was paying lip service to the FSL. So, they enacted more and more draconian modifications to try to force the North to comply (which actually hardened Northern sentiment away from the staus quo, and more towards either the Republican/Free Soiler stance, or the abolitionists )

So in a way, "state's rights" was one of the leading causes of the civil war; specifically, the rights of the Free States to avoid enforcing slavery within their borders were being infringed on.

The politics was about economics which for the South meant slavery. This was explicitly mentioned in many States declarations of secession. You can see this tie of Slavery to Economics even today in the arguments of the Libertarian Von Mises Institute in their rather convoluted attacks against Lincoln and the like.

The average man on both sides, however, fought for a variety of reasons which were often unrelated to Slavery itself. Some fought for their State or Country, some fought for Money, some for Adventure, some were conscripted, some fought for/against Slavery. The Civil War was the first Modern War which not only included the first use of technology such as Aerial (Balloons), Electronic Communication (Telegraph), Ironclads, Machine Guns, Mobile Warfare (Railroads), but also Propaganda so there was a lot of "spin" to get people to fight who otherwise would have not fought.

Came with the rise of modern, industrial grade, printing presses and a mechanism which pushed this into the fabric of life. First war with Mass Communication.

http://www.ideologicalart.com/war/

"This was explicitly mentioned in many States declarations of secession..."

Oddly enough, each state's Articles of Secession mentioned slavery as a relevant motivation. Each one makes the defense of slavery a clear objective, only two did NOT argue for the expansion of slavery (again, all within the Articles themselves). The only other common sentiment held by all the state's articles was international (rather than national) trade.

Indeed, the four states that offered Declarations of Causes (SC, TX, MS, GA) placed slavery as the number one cause for their own entries into the conflict.

Most enlisted southern men fought for two reasons: they were conscripted (the primary reason), or they believed a southern defeat would place blacks on an equal plane of existence with them (hence, by September 1864, President Davis publicly admitted that two thirds of the soldiers were absent, "most of them without leave.&quot .

Source: Drew Faust, 'Christian Soldiers: The Meaning of Revivalism in the Confederate Army.')

Between what the politicians put up as reasons and why individuals actually put their life on the line.

I"m not trying to say that Economics (Slavery) wasn't the primary reason for the monied people to go to war, which it was, it's that it takes real people to fight a war and their motivations were complicated.

L-

It's trivially obvious because slavery was the backbone of the South's economy. Attacking slavery and its expansion into the territories didn't just offend the South, it threatened its economic power.

The argument is insidious because its real intent is to neutralize the Union's moral high ground. Waging economic warfare and jockeying for economic supremacy is far less noble than crusading to end a holocaust of human bondage.