- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,011
- Reaction score
- 7,045
- Points
- 113
Well you are able to believe what you want to believe. It doesn't make what you believe true though.
Trump indicted: Espionage Act
- Thread starter Tibs
- Start date
Simple question. If the institution of slavery does not exist, does that war get fought?
Also, what in my statement there isn't true?
In 1894, legendary Confederate partisan leader, Col. John S. Mosby expressed surprise at a recent speech in which the orator dismissed “the charge that the South went to war for slavery” as a “‘slanderous accusation.’” “I always understood that we went to War on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about,” Mosby observed. “I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery.”
I'd have to say absolutely it would have. The Southern states had a deep seated belief in states rights. The Federal Government was becoming exponentially more powerful and a majority of the Southern states wanted to avoid anything close to what the country separated from a generation before.
It was the Revolutionary War all over again in many of the Southern farm boys eyes. Including both of my great grandfathers. Yep, just two generations ago. We have their notes to prove it. They were not fighting and dying for some wealthy plantation owner to keep his slaves. They were fighting for what their ancestors fought and died for. Freedom from an oppressive central form of government.
Again, I have been clear that the Southern farm boys were not fighting for slavery. I don't know that they were fighting for some idea of freedom from some oppressive central government, either. They were just trying to protect their homes, what was theirs. What little they had.
Again, it was the fools who had them fighting. To those fools, it was all about slavery.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,011
- Reaction score
- 7,045
- Points
- 113
Yes it still gets fought. The part that isn't true is that it is just southern apologetics. Steeltime has already been through the words of the Tyrant Lincoln already but you ignore it. Less than 1% of the population ever owned slaves and it was a dying institution already because of the mechanization of farming. The south did not have conscription and yet 100s of thousands of southern men enlisted without ever having owned slaves because it was about the right of self determination and the issue of slavery was secondary. The war was precisely about stock jobbers in NYC and Chicago maintaining financial dominance.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 21,030
- Reaction score
- 23,268
- Points
- 113
The next civil war certainly will be over corruption, tyranny,oppression and massive fiscal irresponsibly.
But you are ignoring their words! The words of many of the Southern states succession explanations emphasized the issue of slavery. It's their words, not mine. Words mean things. And I never said there were not other factors. But slavery was the main one.
I was getting ready to say that Cyrus McCormick and other inventors at the time were quickly making slavery a thing of the past fortunately, but DBS mentioned it first.
So I'm of the belief that slavery was injected into the mix as the emotional stimulus for those from the North. It was on the way out..
No. However, why is America the only nation to have fought a war to end slavery? Great Britain, Sweden, Portugal, Russia, France, Spain, and Austria abolished slavery between 1814 and 1840. Mexico ended slavery in 1829. Peru and Venezuela abolished slavery in 1854, Puerto Rico in 1873, Egypt in 1877 and Brazil in 1884.
The only nation to go to war over the issue was the United States. My point - one I presume you get - is that slavery is abolished in the United States without the war, probably between 1865 and 1880.
Slavery was certainly a huge reason for the war, but the war did not start because of slavery. The war started because Congress was dominated by the more populous Northern states and voted into law a series of tariffs and taxes that targeted the South. That's an accurate statement. The current argument - "The South started the war to preserve slavery" - does not even make sense. Slavery was legal in 17 states and D.C. as of April, 1861, no measure was before Congress to end slavery, and Lincoln was not interested in ending slavery at the cost of the Union.
And diver, please keep in mind that about 75% of what you read about history is a lie. If you read what historians write in 2223 about 2023 America, you would be appalled. And extremely old.
I'm not sure whom you are addressing - Ogre, I presume?
Orange Man Bad.
Nation was saved by the greatest President in history, Kamala Harris, who is now on Mount Rushmore replacing the racist white slave owners who had been there.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,011
- Reaction score
- 7,045
- Points
- 113
People in the moment don’t see the big picture. You can believe the version of history written by the winner if you want to OR you can step back and see the big picture.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,011
- Reaction score
- 7,045
- Points
- 113
The south didn’t start the war at all. The initial southern states that seceded did so completely peaceably, and even sent communications to the United States government about how they could make arrangements for property of the United States at military posts and navy ports to be removed back across the Mason-Dixon line. Fort Sumter was not attacked the day South Carolina passed its succession legislation, that happened several months later. After an ultimatum was given that foreign occupation was unacceptable. The myth that bloodthirsty southern slave owners attacked Fort Sumter out of the blue is a myth started by Yankee Historians trying to justify the north waging war for economic supremacy.
Last edited:
There was a concerted effort in the late 1800s and early 1900s to make the cause of the South look more noble. Perhaps that is the version of history you are going with?
I am a 56 year old, white, conservative, Christian male. I am sick and tired of the things I believe in and hold dear being called racist. Christianity. Racist! I believe babies and children should be protected. Racist! I believe in the 2nd Amendment. Racist! I believe in borders. Racist! We could go on and on. The natural inclination is to fight back against that. I'm not sure denying the main reason for the Civil War though is a hill to die on, however.
I understand other countries outlawed slavery and we were the only country to fight a war over it. It was more deeply ingrained here than in some of those other places, more depended upon. I do not believe we would have just legislated it away. Look at actions. After the Civil War you had the black codes. Then Jim Crow. Read "Three Bricks Shy of a Load" about the '73 Steelers in which L.C. Greenwood talks about picking cotton when he was a kid. This was the 1950s and 1960s for crying out loud. I believe a war had to be fought to end it or it would not have for a long time. I believe when our founding fathers developed the Constitution of this country, if you read their writings, many of them had some uneasy feelings over the issue of slavery. They pushed it down the road and they knew it.
What I don't understand about your position is if you read the words of the Southern states succession explanations, slavery was clearly the biggest issue. I gave you a quote from John Singelton Mosby. They didn't hide it then, I do not think it is constructive to hide it now behind other things.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,011
- Reaction score
- 7,045
- Points
- 113
Slavery was an issue not the main issue. I get it, you are a Yankee who desperately wants to believe the north didn’t destroy the federalist system in the Civil War so you buy that narrative. I’m done talking to you about this have a nice day.
Ok. Thank you for the debate and the laugh you gave me here at the end of it. It is the first time I have ever been called a desperate Yankee. Have a nice day as well you incorrigible Rebel.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 7,011
- Reaction score
- 7,045
- Points
- 113
I can understand your thinking but during the Presidential debates, Lincoln repeatedly underscored he did not think he had the authority to end slavery and had no plan to end it in states where it existed. Sure, he could have been lying but if so, why didn't he issue the Emancipation Proclamation his first year and a half in office?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 21,030
- Reaction score
- 23,268
- Points
- 113
I used to get called damn Yankee when I moved down here some 33 years ago. I was like war is over..lol.
I agree with the south on everything, BUT slavery.
To me that **** is long gone and over.We have much bigger issues at hand that are deeply rooted.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,808
- Reaction score
- 5,767
- Points
- 113
Can we all agree this is both good and ******* hilarious?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,357
- Reaction score
- 12,311
- Points
- 113
Why is it that you think those in power want better for Americans?
You point out, clearly, that history upto now indicates the opposite.
You seem to believe some of the political marketing.
In what way?
Q: What did Lincoln say after a 3 day bender?
A: I did WHAT!!!??
A: I did WHAT!!!??
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,763
- Reaction score
- 18,021
- Points
- 113
It is and it isn’t. If it ends the war, I’m all for it. But replacing Putin with someone who could be much worse is neither good nor hilarious. But I know, Putin helped Trump, blah blah blah.
