Was slavery the primary cause of the war?

O'Bruadair · Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:09 pm Post subject:

“Why didn't they vote their people into government and try to change things?”

Of course the Southern states did exactly that.

Lincoln and his cronies however would not accept the fact and were willing to indulge in bloodbath to see to that Southerners were not allowed self determination.

“also don't see how the Northerners that moved are trying to change the South”

You ain’t lived in the South much have you?

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

Never, but I've also never heard of any recent problems with Northern "changes" going on down there.

cwff · Corporal Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 3 Location: Illinois

Slavery was a major cause of the Civil War. The south did not want to lose their slave labor. The loss of slave labor would cut into their profits, and reduce their "quality of life". The states rights issue only hid the slavery issue. They wanted the right to hold slaves.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:39 pm Post subject:

One might reasonably argue that the 5% of Southerners who owned slaves were willing to promote secession in order to keep their privileged position. You might also reasonably argue that many non-slave owning Southerners were willing to back secession after it became apparent that there were a set of their “countrymen” in the north who were willing to use, and did use, unlawful means, including murder and terrorism, to try to emancipate slaves.

Slavery was one element in bringing on secession but slavery as a “major cause” of the war?

That’s absurd.

The immediate cause of the war was really pretty simple. The war was caused by Lincoln and his powerful yankee industrialist friends unwillingness to allow seven States to depart peacefully. (As those States, without a doubt, had the legal right to do according to the Constitution).

The question you need to ask your self is why were they so willing, even eager, to slaughter so many people and expend so much treasure to prevent a peaceful and legal political separation?

When you answer that question you will have the real cause of the war. (You might start by contemplating the meaning of the quote below.)

VTYank09 · Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: Back

O.B., hey I'm back haha...sorry I've been away for so long...I was on winter break from my politically correct education for acouple months and since then I've been kind of preoccupied with my other schoolwork but whatever. I will admit I didn't bother to read the whole document you posted about the South declaring war. I apologize for my assumption, the South did indeed declare war, you are absolutely right. You are also right that the North did not...I searched so hard and so long, NOTHING. I guess you could say Lincoln's call for troops was the "declaration" haha, hardly a declaration I know.

But let me offer my interpretation. Disregarding Lincoln's and the North's motivations for war, wealth, power, whatever...Lincoln insisted on calling this issue a domestic insurrection (Wouldn't the title War Between the States indicate this?). And domestic insurrections do not require a declaration of war. Lincoln and the Union did not recognize the Confederacy, and by declaring war it would constitute the Union recognizing the Confederacy. I have read other posts around this forum describing Lincoln's usurpation of power, and his desruction/disobedience of the Constitution, such as suspending the writ of habeas corpus. I won't deny this, I couldn't, to do so would be ignorant. But looking at history, Lincoln was neither the first nor the last to "break the rules" in a time of crisis. Jefferson Davis also made attempts to suspend habeas corpus, and also signed the first national conscription acts. But the South was so strong for States Rights that they resisted any attempt by the Confederate govt. to exert national authority.

The Confederate govt. struggled a great deal, it was its own worst enemy. States Rights vs. National authority. The states did not want to fight for the common good. They needed a strong central govt. at a time like this which they did not have. It was weak and ineffective at times. An example of this would be during the winter of 1864-65. Southern troops in Petersburg were freezing to death and the state of North Carolina had a supply of some 90,000 coats which the governor withheld from the army because he felt there were not enough North Carolina troops in the army to justify them giving the coats to the army.

I am not trying to bash the South or make them the bad guy in anyway. The reason why we argue on this subject still today is because it was such a questionable and turbulating time. My point, both sides are to blame, both sides had their faults and both made mistakes. You can believe that one side should have more blame put on them than the other, but both North and South must be held accountable/responsible for its actions.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:36 am Post subject:

“both sides had their faults and both made mistakes.”

Well no one can argue with that part of your statement and nowhere will you find that I have tried.

Southerners are quite accustomed to admitting the sins and failure of their society and culture. Most Southerners are taught from birth and really believe that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”. That includes our ancestors AND us so we have no problem in accepting our share of the blame.

Even if we did not want to acknowledge those sins and failures we would have no choice. The government schools and the liberal media constantly and relentlessly throw them in our faces. Even our little kindergarten children are required every school day to stand and salute the flag and recite centralist propaganda i.e. that the “nation” is “indivisible” and by inference session was and is legally and morally wrong. Anyone that believes in the rule of law and the constitution and that has a modicum of knowledge of them should recognise the fact that this is a patent lie.

The South has endured 145 years of economic and political subjugation and cultural denigration and slander.

When will the debt for the sins of our ancestors be paid?

When will yankees and more to the point the federal government accept their culpability too?

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

Have you read nothing we say? We too know we have made mistakes, we know our ancestors could've done more to stop the war. We also admit our errors.

As for the pledge, the point of having a country and being united is not to constantly think about sucession. We're supposed to work together, not wait for another civil war. We are united again and we will stay united. We are indivisible. Things are different now. We stand together and we fight together. We are no longer sections of a nation. We are a whole nation. It's a shame you can't see that though.

VTYank09 · Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: Good points

Both of you, O.B. and charge, make some good points. I was wondering since you brought it up O.B., do you know when the pledge of allegiance was written/started? Ah yes, I remember my school days as a child standing up and saying those words:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I do agree with charge though, I don't see our country being divided, as it was then, in today's society. I mean it's a very interesting question, and we don't really know.

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

Only time will tell I suppose.

chief_joseph · Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:31 am Post subject:

Guys,
I think O.Bsy more meant the federal government instead of the yankees as such but has forgotten to drop it out.
To the question if your nation is divided still - I wouldn't say so indeed, but considering that some questions raised in the past still are in the need to be answered.

I fairly can imagine that the blaming on the loser, the CSA, is something that still is gnawing on the Southern boys not to mention the "disaster" of the mostly failed reconstruction.
And that's where I totally agree with O.B.- the Fed.Gov. should recognize their own guilt in this conflict of the past days.

Me myself I know that in the past of my nation the Allies exactly did the same and where it was leading to ? - Yep, WW II ( well of course it does not mean that you guys will slip into another continental conflict )

O'Bruadair · Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:14 am Post subject:

“the point of having a country and being united is not to constantly think about sucession. We're supposed to work together”

Well I’ll give you this, every tyrant from Caesar to Sadam would have certainly agreed with that sentiment!

“O.B., do you know when the pledge of allegiance was written/started?”

Yes, it was written in 1892 by a Boston preacher and proponent of “National Socialism” (AKA fascism) named Frances Bellemy. Bellemy did not include the phrase “under God” in his original though. That was added later.

Bellemy was also one of the early leaders of the NEA. He also had been defrocked by the Baptist church for preaching his fascist/socialist views from the pulpit.

BTW I’d certainly be surprised if anyone on this board knew all THAT! Most Americans of whatever region or political stripe DON”T WANT to know the truth about that.

If you doubt me try these:

http://ask.yahoo.com/20010821.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo54.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/bock2.html

http://rexcurry.net/pledgetragedy.html

Chief! Thanks for you usual fair-minded and clearheaded view point! Thank your lucky stars that you have not had the “advantage” of an American public “education”. It seems to me that being coerced into reciting nationalistic, statetist propaganda (the pledge) every day from the age of 5 to 18 may lead to a short-circuit of the independent thinking abilities of many! The American system of education was originally based on Prussian ideas. Guess you have overcome that kind of thing now!

chief_joseph · Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject:

O'Bruadair wrote:

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

Well I think Caesar was a pretty good dictator for the most part so I'm glad he would agree with me lol. I guess I'll always believe in what our country was meant to establish, you know, freedom for all, democracy, all that good stuff. Besides, there's a difference between uniting to take over the world and uniting to create the best lives we can for ourselves and our future generations. I believe in the latter.

As for the pledge, I never thought about what I was saying, and I don't even do it anymore. Almost every student doesn't care what it means or even think about it's meaning. We just mumble the words and get it over with. To be honest, most students hate the pledge. Not the best way to get young people to show their alligence to their country lol.

I wish my teachers would teach like yours did, Chief. My class is pretty boring, a good time to nap for sure. Of course, world history is not my forte either lol. We unfortunately suck at the state testing at my school so we have stupid schedules to follow which doesn't allow for cool lessons. That's the one thing I hate about the education system. Everything is dependent on a standardized test. It really prohibits good learning.

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

Wow, this has gone on for a very long time. the answer is no. plain and simple. NOO!!!! And if you think it was, your not properly educated.

Pvt. Gale
N.W. 15th Arkansas

AmericanKiltedYaksman · Corporal Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 5

Was slavery the cause of the war? well that is a question that I hear alot.

Here is the way I see it from what I know

There were many things the north and the south dissagreed on. but the main problem was state rights

The north beleived that the federal goverment should have most of control and the country should act as one.

The south belived states should have all of the control and the federal should not interfear with state rights. Basicly let the states do what they want.

Now when lincon came to power he started to try to contain slavery. The south thought that should be a state right and the federal goverment shouldnt get involved so they succeded. it was the last straw so to speak.

The war started later because the union needed be perserved. slavery became and issue later in the war.