Was slavery the primary cause of the war?

dixierules · Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject:

no they weren't copy cats they all believed the same things and south carolina just happened to take action first.

GeoMcClellan · Sergeant Major Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 71

And what were those things they believed? That slavery should spread west and not be questioned? How dare the north even think that slavery could end!

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

george,
your post above proves my point about the mainstream media. You have no clue. Slavery and the spread of it was about a balance of power and money. It was not a moral issue. Kansas was not a good place to grow cotton. Slave labor was not required to grow wheat. Slaves were of no use in Kansas. Unlike these others however, I believe slavery was the main cause (of many causes) for seccesion. But, the Civil War was not a moral crusade by the north to end slavery. Anyone who believes that is sticking their head in the sand.

GeoMcClellan · Sergeant Major Joined: 22 Apr 2006 Posts: 71

I never said the war was a moral crusade to end slavery. The war happened because partisan politicians like Lincoln and his party played upon fears of both sides and antagonized the south. And that cursed Blair family!

Historygirl · Corporal Joined: 02 May 2006 Posts: 1

It did not start out as a war over slavery but soon became one of the main and most important one.True taxation was the cause in begining. Very Happy

N.W.15thAR · Captain Joined: 07 Mar 2006 Posts: 167

Hey George! where can i get that set at?

Pvt. Gale
N.W. 15th Arkansas

zudz · Corporal Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 1

Hist. girl is correct. It didn't start out about slavery throughout the entire Confederacy as it ended up. The greatest problem over slavery at the beginning of the war was the fact that the Southern states wanted to expand slavery into the new western region (Kansas Territory, California ...etc). There was very heated debate over this subject, but it was not enough to cause seccation on it's own. As much as taxation was a problem, the largest factor in the start of the war was the problem of fair compensation for the raw materials that the south was providing to the northern mills and factories. These materials were being manufactured and sold at much greater profit to the northern textilers than to the southern producer. This caused a great rift in the nation that was then furthered alond by other issues such as slavery and other political differances.

bropey · Corporal Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 2

Im only 14 and I would like to thank you for all your information but this is the way I see it.

The Confederacy was afraid of Lincoln and the Republican Party. All the speeches and declares against slavery freeked the Confederates out. But Lincoln was after saving the union, he knew if he allowed the states to secede then the union would fall. He wrote the Emancipation Proclamation which he published after some great victories. It was basicly a compromise, but the way he wrote it was briliant. He turned the whole war into the fact of slavery, which later created the Confederacy to lose allies. England and France were against slavery and banned it in their contries. So releasing the Proclamation and turning the war into slavery made it difficult to allie with the Confederacy who was battleing for slavery. The simple fact is that the wars main cause was states rights, just the war was later turned into slavery as the reason to fight just so that Lincoln could protect his country and save the union.

-Will Spalding 8th Grader from Olympia Washington.

blcknewyork · Corporal Joined: 29 May 2006 Posts: 1

This is the text I posted from a previous discussion on this same topic:

We owe the American Civil War to the presence of slavery in the United States. The states that would eventually form the confederacy felt that agreements established by the "founding fathers" were not being adhered to, namely the right of property, specifically slaves. Slaveholders felt they should have the right to have slaves in any state in the union and the right to establish slavery in the United States territory. If not they felt non-slave states should not outnumber slave states for this would be detrimental to their institution due to misrepresentation in both houses and would ultimately lead to the weakening of African slavery and its extinction in America. They felt they were given the short end of he stick with legislation such as the Missouri Compromise. Lincoln made known his disdain for the spread of slavery but was adamant about defending it where it already existed. The two presidents before him likewise defended laws with extreme action (military response to northern disobedience of the fugitive slave laws of 1850) in favor of southern slaveholders. Not willing to see United States territory admitted exclusively as non-slave states, secession conventions were held and southern states starting with South Carolina seceded. Seceding states wrote documents of secession detailing why they were removing themselves from the union and forming a confederate government. These declarations of secession, one for each seceding state, listed slavery as the reason for secession. Google "Declaration of secession" and read them for yourself. One would have to be delusional to believe slavery was not the most important reason the civil war was fought.

Read the minutes from a few congressional debates between the beginning of the government and the 19th century. Not only will one realize the primary cause of the civil war was slavery, you will hear secession being threatened time and time again during discussions as early as the African Slave Trade debates. A lot has to be ignored to not realize that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war.

cwalenta989 · Corporal Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1

Slavery is the cause of the war. Without slavery, secession does not occur. Why does South Carolina secede first? South Carolina had not only the largest percentage of slaves, but actually had a MAJORITY slave population. Now, if you were a slaveholder, wouldn't you fear a democracy composed of voters of your formerly oppressed slaves (similar to the problem o apartheid in South Africa).

The North fighting the war to 'preserve the Union' does not mean South did not secede to prevent Northern abolition. Remember secession ONLY occurs after free states obtain a majority in the Senate.

The right to secede WAS ambiguous. (It is now CLEARLY illegal). The legal argument against secession points to the Articles of Confederation which sites a 'perpetual' union. The Constitution was made to form a 'more perfect union' - the US Government under Constitution is a successor (legally) to the government under the Articles. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in Texas v. White (1869) that all ordinances and laws in furtherance of secession were 'null and void' (Of course this decision occurs four years after the fact) I grant that the topic of the legality of secession is at least worth debating. Interesting debate would be a potential statehood for Puerto Rico - if Puerto Rico becomes a state could it be permitted to secede even though other states are (statutorily I might add) prevented from seceding?

Just because slavery is clearly the spark doesn't mean 'state's rights' ISN'T ALSO an important consideration. We cannot forget that Virginia's real objection was Lincoln calling on Virginia to raise troops to suppress rebellion in sister states.

Look forward to your responses, haven't posted here in a while, figured I'd stir up the pot.

BobbyLee · Corporal Joined: 08 Aug 2006 Posts: 3

poloist12 · Corporal Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 4

I think the true question should be, has the Civil War ended?

I know, I know; a whole other topic. But honestly, has it ended?

South still hates north. North still thinks South is a bunch of uneducated hillbillies. This statement was not meant to offend anyone, and if you were I'm sorry.

I have lived in both places, and currently living in the South. The people down here still dislike "Carpet Baggers." There is a running joke here. What's the best kind of Yankee? One who goes home after a visit? An even better Yankee is one who goes home after a visit, and takes another Yankee with him.

There might still be bitterness about the war, but in time it will subside, just as we are now somewhat getting along with the British.

Cause of the War? Taxation With Out Representation.....

Bar none, this was the reasoning behind it all. It wasn’t the issue of Slavery. Although, this issue did play a very key roll in it all.

The Lincoln did the same as King George, advise the slaves that they are free, and they will fight. That simple. A gamble if you ask me, as it really didn't work that well in old Georgies favor.

The South needed to be broken financially, and it worked. Most southern cities are still broke. *beep* most Southern states are broke. I know the one I'm in is.

Not only did this break the Southern infrastructure then, but now.

Freeing the slaves was a means to an end. The financial Nuclear bomb if you will.

Most may not know this, but Lincoln really didn't want to free the slaves like we were taught in school. He wasn't for it, but did not believe in equality of all men. He was torn with this, and this is why it was implemented so late in the game. He had also planned a mass exodus of the black populace to Haiti, and other Caribbean countries as well.
cwalenta989, I gree with what you've said.. Just in a diffrent light.

Natty · Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject:

Less than 5% of the Southerners had slaves. And the rich people had slaves not the ones doing the fighting.

Many Northern states also had slaves.

Even William Penn of PA was a slave owner.

The secession of Southern states was for basically the same reason we wanted to leave England earlier.

The South was fighting because their land was invaded by the northern Army.

Maybe the Yanks were told they were fighting to free the slaves, but gee why didnt they start in their own backyard?

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

Don't bring Penn into this. He died in 1718. At that time almost no one questioned slavery or believed in equality. Sorry if I ruined your argument but you can't make the North look bad by saying someone from the 18th century was a slave owner. If anything, it makes you look foolish.

I have to thank you though because I finally realize how young men could give up their lives for their state. I felt their sense of loyalty when you attacked Pennsylvania. That's why I just had to defend the founder of my state.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject:

Interesting discussion, with all the usual straw men trotted out on both sides.

No one really has even come close to treeing the real game though

When poloist12 asks: “has the Civil War ended”? he (or she as the case may be) at least comes close to striking the real trail.

Well looks like a good place to drop the tail gate and let the dogs out cause there is a good crossin here.

In 1860 according to US census data the per capita value of personal property in Mississippi was more than 2 ½ times that of Massachusetts. By this measure Mississippi was the richest State in the Union. Mississippi was of course the POOREST not only by 1870 but is still so today 146 years and four generations latter.

If you start to gain some modicum of understanding of the reasons this is so you may end up with a snoot full of the scent of truth. And after all that IS the game we are trying to tree. Ain’t it?

Note: Before anybody jumps on the idea that all of Mississippi’s wealth was in the human property of slaves consider this. These figures are PER CAPITA ones. That is the slaves were included in the calculations. If we left their value out of the calculations we would have to leave them out of the population too.

Anyway you want to compare the numbers the average Cracker in the South was wealthier BY FAR than the average mill hand in yankeeland. The disparity in real wealth would be even more if we consider that most Crackers grew or killed practically everything they ate or wore while the yankee mill hand had to use his hard earned wages to buy his duds and vittals!

The myth is that the South lost the war because she was poor (and nobody has bought into that myth more than Southerners)

The truth is the South is poor because She lost the war!