Was slavery the primary cause of the war?

Natty · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:04 pm Post subject:

"Generals Grant and Sherman owned slaves!?!? I'm having and allergic reaction to all the B.S flying around here. That argument is so full of holes that it couldn't hold a drop of water."

Those are your words. Just thought I would enlighten you. Cant change the truth. Cant rewrite history. They both indeed owned slaves.

If you cant handle the truth, why are you on a HISTORY forum?

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

Natty, are you that oblivious to what deserteagle is saying? Jeez, even a 6th grader could see how wrong you are. Stop avoiding the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. d.e. obviously knows a lot more than you do when it comes to research and history, so just drop it.

Natty · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject:

He didnt even know Grant and Sherman owned slaves. Then when told this, he refused to acknowledge it.

Your post is pretty funny Charge of Glory LMAO.

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

So is your stupidity.

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

And now my rebuttal. I don't need you to do my research. I can do it on my own, and I have. Three books for you Natty; not websites from google, books; reputable sources. US Grant did have the use of slaves, and his wife owned four, given to her by her father, which is normal for a slave owning father to give his daughter several. In a letter to his sister, he wrote that he now had the use of "three slaves, two hired by the year and one of Mr. Dent's, which with my own help, will enable me to do my farming pretty well."(1) In fact, Grant found the hired negroes and those of his wife "more trouble than help to him."(2) It seems from evidence, though not fully clear (because neither he nor Julia really talked about it) that he treated them humanely and disapproved of the institution, seeing as he treated them humanely and worked alongside them. One former slave that he hired, a man named "Old Uncle Jason" was actually quoted as saying that Grant was the "kindest man he ever worked for. 'He used ter pay us several cents more a cord for cuttin' wood than anyone else paid, and some of the whites cussed about it.'"(3) And the one slave that Grant did "own" if it can be called that, was one William Jones. When Grant was preparing to move to work with his father, he signed William's emancipation papers, giving him his freedom. In Jean Smith's biography of Grant, he states that "Grant never discussed his motives, but the action speaks for itself. Able bodied slaves sold for a thousand dollars or more, and Grant surely could have used the money."(4) There is no evidence that Grant ever used the men as anything but hired hands on his farm. He did not agree with the institution, as has been evidenced. The vernacular of the time referred to black men as slaves or negroes, so saying that he "had slaves" most likely means he just had some hired hands, who were from other owners, that he hired out to work for him. He did not whip them, or make them work any more than he did, and he paid them. Not many slave owners paid their slaves. Hence why they were slaves.

All sources have citations from primary source documents (seeing as they have been footnoted in the back of the book) or come from men who knew Grant on a personal level.

Sources:
1) Jean Edward Smith, Grant (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 92 source of letter comes from the Grant papers, pgs. 338-39
2) Albert Richardson, Personal History of Ulysses S. Grant (Hartford, CT: American Publishing Co. 1868), 153
3) Jean Edward Smith, Grant (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 94
4) William S. McFeely, Grant: A Biography (New York: W.W Norton and Company, 1981), 62-63

There ya go. Sources, backed by primary document, found in a library. I can do the research. I just wanted you to back it up, with reputable sources, seeing as you made the comment.

Natty · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject:

Thank you for being man enough to admit that you were wrong and Grant did indeed own slaves.

Now research Sherman and the fact that he also owned slaves. Which you also had trouble with.

possum · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject: was slavery

You are sounding quite patronising there DE. I hope u r not suggesting that only academics should use the forum. There is much to be said for personal lineage and how people's families down the generations have been scarred by the war. (some still have septic ulcers rather than scars). In our wars many people took to the bottle to anaesthetize their suffering and we are still wearing the intergenerational long-term effects of alcoholism, neglect, domestic violence etc in 2006. Neglect and poverty often mean no decent education. No opportunities to go to University like lucky old you. And your wars were on a much larger scale.

The war was also fought mainly in the south don't forget. I have gleaned a somewhat holier than thou attitude to the southerners coming from the northerners since being on this forum. You're always going to get racists in all walks of life regardless of where they're from or how intelligent or how educated they are. We've got a whole heap over here too.You're always gonna get pscyhopaths no matter where too. Like the NY raiders in Andersonville.

I wonder if it would be more useful to try and understand where people are coming from before discounting them.

It's not so much a Google search that is the problem. It's more lack of discernment whilst searching.I love the Google search engine AND I have a University degree so i know about Ebesco too.

possum · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject: was slavery

You are sounding quite patronising there DE. I hope u r not suggesting that only academics should use the forum. There is much to be said for personal lineage and how people's families down the generations have been scarred by the war. (some still have septic ulcers rather than scars). In our wars many people took to the bottle to anaesthetize their suffering and we are still wearing the intergenerational long-term effects of alcoholism, neglect, domestic violence etc in 2006. Neglect and poverty often mean no decent education. No opportunities to go to University like lucky old you. And your wars were on a much larger scale.

The war was also fought mainly in the south don't forget. I have gleaned a somewhat holier than thou attitude to the southerners coming from the northerners since being on this forum. You're always going to get racists in all walks of life regardless of where they're from or how intelligent or how educated they are. We've got a whole heap over here too.You're always gonna get pscyhopaths no matter where too. Like the NY raiders in Andersonville.

I wonder if it would be more useful to try and understand where people are coming from before discounting them.

It's not so much a Google search that is the problem. It's more lack of discernment whilst searching.I love the Google search engine AND I have a University degree so i know about Ebesco too.

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

No, I feel to the contrary. Everyone should be allowed to use this forum. Just make sure your argument isn't entirely baseless and has some substance. I am quite glad to see high schoolers on here putting in their two cents; and they certainly are trained academics. I happen to have training there, and I know how to use it. If I see something that I think is wrong, I will argue my point. Thats what this is about isn't it?

This isn't an issue of personal history. I had family on both sides. I don't know why some people can't understand that the war is over. It ended. Its not going to start again. I have friends who are, in a sense, pro-Southern. But they just feel an affinity to that side of the conflict. I don't look at them any differently.

And who said I was a northerner? I may be, and I may not be. I may just be open minded. And yes, Ebesco is a university students friend. Not Google. Ebsco searches for journal articles. If she had used that, I would have been impressed. But, she didn't.

possum · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject: was slavery

Yep, I made an assumption that you were from the North - based on your quote which doesn't seem to pertain to these times to me. Apologies for that.
But on further reflection, I guess you don't have too many desert eagles flapping about Northern climes but that could be another red herring to trick us all.So maybe you live in one of those contentious states which had trouble figuring out who they wanted to identify with. Anyway any polarization tends to lead to division so that probably means you're an American.

VTYank09 · Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:50 pm Post subject:

"due to taxation without representation"

This is not the American Revolution here. This is American democracy. The South was not under the rule of a foreign government, maybe they saw it that way, but that's not the point. After Lincoln's election in 1860, the South was still in great shape. Southern Democrats still controlled Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. All 9 justices were Democrats and 5 came from Southern slaveholding families. Chief Justice Roger Taney was a supporter of slavery. The common misconception about Lincoln was that he was an abolitionist and this is not true. Lincoln believed in the inferiority of the black man and did not want to abolish slavery where it already existed in the South. He just wanted to stop it from expanding. The only way to get rid of slavery is by a Constitutional Amendment and you need 3/4 of the states to ratify it. 1/2 of the states in America at the time were Southern states. Taxes were a minimal cause of the war and took place back in the antebellum days of the South. States Rights were not mentioned until the 1850s. While there were many major causes of the Civil War, the primary cause, the primary battle was over the fiercely contested issue of slavery. That was the main issue of the times.

chief_joseph

Me too I am more and more convinced that slavery was not the cause of the CW. It was in my opinion more an excuse to start it.
I am not aware of any war that took place where slavery was a cause.
War is mostly being held because of political reasons or for expansion issues ( except a revolution war ).

In the US - at this time - there had been the question if they continue to live the "old fashioned way" like in the south ( means a mostly agricultural economy ) or if they take the way of the "industrial revolution" which was more the economy in the north.
The fact is that in worlds history there had been a 2nd industrial tournament at this time and also a certain restructure in the economies and social structures.

I may in some circumstances compare your CW with a so-called CW that took place in Germany.
Here too the main reason was the hegemonial power over the German countries.
It was the question whether the more improved Prussia in the north will have the power or the more "old fashioned" Austria-Hungary in the south.
( BTW that war took place 6 months after the US CW - Prussia has won this fight )

However, in the US CW it was a question which system will dominate the US.

Slavery, again, I cannot really accept as a reason.
Why f.e. there was war against the native Indians ( Wounded Knee massacre ) after the CW ?

O'Bruadair · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:04 pm Post subject:

Keen observations Chief (and BTW talk about military genius! Chief Joseph was right up there with R.E. Lee!)

You said “I am not aware of any war that took place where slavery was a cause.”

You are right about that. And we could even say that there were very few wars (if any) in history that started for purely altruistic reasons of any knid. A few individuals may be motivated to put their lives on the line purely for the good of their fellow man but Governments just do not operate that way!

Good comparison between US politics of centralization and the German too. Prussia was doing the same thing in Germany that the yankee’s did in the WBTS (centralizing political power)

I know too that in “Mien Kampf” Hitler used Lincoln’s doctrine of consolidation of political power as an example of why it was right to suppress the rights of the German States.

I am not saying that Bismarck was the same as Hitler by any means. I am saying that centralization of power into the hands of a few is an absolute prerequisite for tyranny and that devolution of that power is the best assurance of liberty and peace!

VTYank09 · Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: Slavery

So no one thinks slavery was a major cause of the Civil War? You think it was all an excuse to start a war? It's all about taxes and States Rights, or which region controls the government and which way the country goes, towards industry or agriculture? Here's what the President and Vice-President of the CONFEDERATE States of America had to say.

Jefferson Davis on slave labour, "was and is indespensable. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern states were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced."

Alexander H. Stephens (V.P.) speaking on how the Confederate constitution put to rest all of the questions regarding slavery, "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

The South viewed the Northern armies as invaders. They had to defend their families and homes. Most importantly they had to defend their way of life, and the institution they based it on, slavery. The South could not survive without slavery.

As I said before there were many causes, and I'm not saying that taxes and States Rights weren't an issue. I'm just making the argument that slavery was the primary issue. They had argued over it since the end of the importation of slaves in 1808. It ultimately led to war. I thought the quote below was interesting Very Happy

------------------------------------------------------------
"I wish that I owned every slave in the South, for I would free them all to avoid this war." - Robert E. Lee

VTYank09 · Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: Slavery

"I may in some circumstances compare your CW with a so-called CW that took place in Germany.
Here too the main reason was the hegemonial power over the German countries.
It was the question whether the more improved Prussia in the north will have the power or the more "old fashioned" Austria-Hungary in the south.
( BTW that war took place 6 months after the US CW - Prussia has won this fight )

However, in the US CW it was a question which system will dominate the US."

Oh and by the way, what was the South's AGRICULTURAL system based on I wonder...SLAVERY. The South couldn't survive without it. Yes many historians believe that eventually slavery would have been abolished. But you can't get rid of it over night because it would have thrown the South into chaos. All the free black men running around...chaos for the South.

And real quick, the correct term is Civil War, not War Between the States. The definition of a Civil War: people from the same area struggling for control. And as I mentioned the South, struggling for control or their independence to control their way of life, was based on SLAVERY.