The only true cause

deserteagle_810 · First Sergeant Joined: 18 Sep 2006 Posts: 32

Ok, this is getting way out of hand. O'Brudair, knock it off with the Marxist crap. You obviously don't understand what Marxist historians actually stand for and you are just using it as an insult. You are beginning to sound like Sen. McCarthy during the Red Scare. Do you have a list out there of those on this forum who are Marxist? Is it in your hands as we speak? It does not seem that you know how to debate with people in a civil manner. And don't go knocking on the guy just because he (or she, I don't know) seems to be open minded. That is what a some one who is looking at history is supposed to be. So knock it off!!!! Evil or Very Mad

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

What is a Marxist historian anyway? You guys have talked about it, but never really said what it was.

Garrison · Corporal Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 5

I love how you answered my questions with statements and URL's.

Who said I hate anyone? It is you that seem to be filled with hate. And it is a joke for you to say that I hate my own people. What the *beep* does that mean? My own people are Americans, not some region of country. Culture is different in every state. Just ask people from the Great state of Texas how they feel about Oklahoma. When the president speaks, he does not My Fellow Southerners, he says My Fellow Americans.

The Slavery topic for me is always an interesting one on this forum and has been since I started posting here in 1999.

No one from the South will ever come out and say Slavery was a horrible and immoral thing that America should be ashamed of. People like are you all too quick to put Slavery aside as the root cause of the WBTS. That’s why you bring to the table other topics like States Rights and Taxes as being the primary cause. Or you say things like less than 5% of Southerners owned slaves, or many slaves were treated great by their owners. Complete joke. Treating people like property to be bought is so unbelievably unacceptable. And I am not say that you agree with Slavery, but trying to find alternate root cause is a joke. Slavery can be tied to all to the causes of the WBTS. Like I said before, it is my opinion that if Slavery failed to exist there may not have been a war at all. Additionally, Slavery caused a great deal of problems after the war that we are still dealing with today.

deserteagle_810 · First Sergeant Joined: 18 Sep 2006 Posts: 32

It is basically a person who sees history as one large class conflict. All wars and other conflicts through out time are a clash between the proletariat (the working class) and the bourgeois (the upper or ruling class) and the proletartiat will eventually overthrow the bourgeois, and it keeps going on like this. Its very communistic/socialist in its approach. It is much more complicated than what I said here, but it is really a poor way to look at history. The thing with Marxist historians is that they like to look at wars such as the American Civil War, the English Civil War and the like as Marxist conflicts, when in reality they aren't. It is a poor historical approach. If you go to the library, or ask a history teacher or professor, they should be able to explain it much more in depth.

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

That does sound like a pretty bad approach. It sounds rediculous too.

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

THE5ASPECTS · Sergeant Joined: 07 Feb 2008 Posts: 15

"Would the Civil War have happened at all if Slavery has ceased back in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise?

It is logical to think that since slavery spiraled out of control it could not have been slowed down unless a war was fought.

Additionally, there is very little proof out there to suggest that the South was slowly eliminating slavery. Those who suggest that slavery would have died out over the next 20 or so years from 1860 are simply speculating.

Why would slavery simply dissolve when the labor it provided was the backbone of the Southern economy?

And I will agree that sharecropping was bad, but it was not as bad as slavery."

You make it sound like only the South was at fault. Secession was legal/Constitutional. The North had no right to interfere with another country's politics! I agree, however, in that slavery was bad.[/quote]

Animelover921 · Corporal Joined: 02 Mar 2008 Posts: 7

The war was not started because of slavery, but it wasnt love of money, either. I would believe that the war was started because the South just wanted to be thier own country. They were scared that Abraham Lincoln was [u]going[/u] to ban slavery, and that would tip thier whole economical structure. They wanted to continue thier way of life as it was, they didnt know how to live any other way.
The North was just trying to keep the country together, but instead it was falling apart at the seams.
So, i think the south was fighting for slavery, but the North was just trying to keep the country from being divided.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject:

“….i think the south was fighting for slavery, but the North was just trying to keep the country from being divided.”

If you really believe that the South (a place BTW) in general was fighting for slavery and only slavery then you must believe that the majority of the people of the South were willing to risk everything, including their lives, so that 5% of their population might keep their privileged status.

This is clearly absurd. That does not mean you can’t believe it of course.I am certain you will continue to believe it. People believe absurdities all the time, always have; always will.

If you really believe that the north (a direction BTW) was fighting just to “keep their country from being divided” then reason and logic dictates that you ask yourself WHY they were willing to expend so much blood and treasure to deny the people of the South self determination. The obvious answer is that the federal government did not want to let go of the part of “their country” that was paying 80% of the cost of that government!

Not only this, had the South been able to win Her independence it would have ended (perhaps for all time) the northern/mercantilist/Whig/Repuplican/yankee/Alexander Hamilton/Henry Clay/Abe Lincoln dream of centralization of power so that the “American system” (taxation of the general population for the benefit of a few) might be realized.

1st Timothy 6:1

DI CKENS had it right.

Bbbob · Sergeant Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 12

slavery IS wrong and WAS wrong. Without question. It's an awful thing. Horrendous.

Do you think the USA was the only country to have slavery? NO! - Almost every country had slavery at one time or another. That's just a fact. And almost every country was able to rid themselves of that horrible practice with PEACEFUL EMANCIPATION!

PEACEFUL EMANCIPATION.

So if you believe the civil war was about slavery, you'll have to explain as to why you think it couldn't haven't have been dealt with and resolved peacefully like most other countries.

Let me save you the trouble...it's because slavery wasn't what the war was about.

In a nutshell Lincoln was taxing the heck out of the south and South Carolina said, the heck with this!

Any state that wanted to make a stand against slavery, had the right to secede themselves. Thus rendering the fugitive slave act null and void in their state and any escaped slave would have a safe haven in that state. That would have eventually ended slavery right there and then with slavery ended, those states could rejoin the union.

That's just 1 example of way to have ended slavery.

But Lincoln's agenda had nothing to do with slavery, it had everything to do with money and power.

Does this sound like a quote from a guy wanting to go to war to end slavery?

"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these (new) territories. We want them for the homes of free white people"
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 10/16/1954

You really think a guy saying such a thing is going to go to war to end slavery?

C'mon.

Lincoln wanted a centralized government where government had all the control and could tax people left and right whether they liked it or not.

The south wanted to have independence from an all powerful government with such control.

That's what the war was about.

simjinyi98 · Corporal Joined: 31 Jul 2008 Posts: 1

[quote="O'Bruadair"]Governments just don’t go to war for humane or altruistic reasons, like "freeing the slaves".(anyone who is so naïve as to believe they do I urge you to contact me I have some ”authentic” Confederate three dollar bills I would like to sell you)

Governments have made up a lot of excuses for going to war and butchering people over the ages but there has only been one real reason. Once again Charles Di ck ens was right when he said of the WBTS “the root of this, like most evils, is the love of money”.

Here was the basic conflict in the WBTS:

On one side you had “Hamiltonians” of the north who wanted a centralized government with a protectionist mercantilist system that would give large handouts to favoured corporations (northern corporations of course). Remember it was this bunch that wanted to create an American monarchy from the git go!

The New Englanders wanted this system from the very beginning but weren't able to cram the thing whole hog down the throats of the rest of the country when the Constitution was originally written. They however did not give up!

They were perfectly willing to make hash out of the constitution, spend as much money, cause as much misery and kill as many people as necessary to get it later.

On the other side were the “Jefersonians” of the South who wanted a free trade republic with political power dispersed among the states. They wanted to keep the constitution intact, for those ends.

This don’t let them off the “love of money” hook either. They were advocating such policy for their own economic benefit. It is just that the existing constitution was on their side so in a purely legal sense, at least, they were in the right.

Now what about that "free the slaves" excuse?

Had the Southern plantations been worked by Irish immigrants or Chinese coolies (And don’t think that farfetched. It was tried after the WBTS) and there had never been an African or any other race of slaves in the South the basic economic/political equation would not have been changed one iota.

The conflict would have remained and given the belligerent aggressive attitude (GIVE ME SUBSIDIES OR GIVE ME DEATH)of the people who held sway in the north it would have still led to war!

All this being the case how can any one believe that slavery caused the WBTS?[/quote] Very Happy

[b][/b][b][i][/i][quote][/quote][u][i][img][/img][list=][list][/list][/list][list][/list][/i][/u][/b]

orfejns · Corporal Joined: 27 Aug 2008 Posts: 3

The debate, although interesting, has been resolved everywhere else but in USA and CSA. In other parts of the world no one, in their right mind with any sort of education would presume slavery was a cause of the War Between the States. It's so clear that the war broke out for political reasons with North wanting to keep the Union and South feeling it would be better off on its own. As I recall, only one president before Ape Lincoln was non Virginian (or non Southern) and with this in mind, South saw it could not fulfill its interests if a Yankee could become president as North had more people.

Someone stated earlier that wars are not fought over morality or pretty women and this is so true! If one argues slavery to be a cause of the WBTS, one would have to argue Hellene of Troy's abduction caused Troyan war and not Agamemnon's desire to dominate the Greek world.

Basically the same thing happened with the Northern aggression against the Southern nations. The abolition of slavery is commonly used at present day to approve the invasion in the eyes of the world. Yankee propagandists know very well how uneducated an average person is and just how awful must slavery look to them, so when you use movies, songs, media etc. to blame the South for slavery and explain Ape's desire to liberate the oppressed, you can not fail. I think the Abolition was first proclaimed a cause of the war in 1863. in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. He was laughed at by Boston press and no one would go to fight for this. It was only when the Lincoln character issued the Homestead Act that many people went to war in order to get a mule and 50 acres of land. This kind of things has been seen so many times through history, especially in the middle ages when monarch called soldiers under their flag promising looting and plundering.

Even with naming the conflict "Civil War" Yankee propaganda keeps forging false history. If you call a war civil war, one would have to presume it was a rebellion against a legitimate government, while this was a war between Northern aggressor and Southern defenders - an international armed conflict!

Whether one would call slavery disgusting and uncivilized (I most certainly would) or not is not an issue here. It's merely used by Yanks to diverse attention and switch thesis.

Moreover, people like Stonewall Jackson and R.E. Lee were opposed to slavery as many others, intellectually and morally advanced members of Southern elite especially in Virginia. The rest of South would follow Virginia when it would abolish slavery and this would so happen. 20, 30 or 50 years later, just as it did in Europe much earlier. This has to do with the natural process of society development.

P.S.

As English is not my language and I rarely use it, you will have to pardon my lack of expertise in it.

Savez · First Sergeant Joined: 06 Apr 2006 Posts: 25

[quote]No, but on the moral scale which many in the South now live on, it did not compare to the horrors of Slavery. Not even close. [/quote]

What do you consider "horrors"? Not being free is horrid in its own right. But the selling of little babies away from their mothers and the constant massive beatings is propaganda at its best.

[quote]Or you say things like less than 5% of Southerners owned slaves, [/quote]

You are right. Actually it was 8% if you consider "Southerners" to mean Southern families. If you went with individuals it would be less than 1%.

[quote]It's so clear that the war broke out for political reasons with North wanting to keep the Union and South feeling it would be better off on its own.[/quote]

Political reasons? Political reasons surrounding slavery. Slavery was the root cause of the Civil War. It has been wound into the fabric of this country since it was merely a make up of colonies. However, It is completely obvious that the war was not a moral crusade to end slavery. I've come to believe that the war was caused by slavery but it was not fought over slavery.

[quote]Moreover, people like Stonewall Jackson and R.E. Lee were opposed to slavery as many others, intellectually and morally advanced members of Southern elite especially in Virginia.[/quote]

Stonewall Jackson owned six slaves.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject:

Ain’t it interesting that just about all yankees are incapable of even considering anything but slavery as [b]THE [/b]cause of the [i]War to Prevent Atlanta[/i], while most Europeans who have not had the “advantage” of an American public “education” take the opposite view?

What does this tell us about yankees? .................. .About the true causes of the WBTS? ................ About American “education”?