Was slavery the primary issue of the civil war or was it states rights?

[vetteman9368]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I haven't read any of the replies yet but I can assume that several people are arguing that it was about states rights.

That is simply revisionist history.

It was about slavery, cut and dry.

I challenge any of you who object to that to cite the specific "states right" OTHER than slavery that was in question.

South Carolina objected to whether or not the federal government had the right to have a base in its state without its permission. THAT is not revisionist history, but then again a leftist would know a thing about revisionist history.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

My ancestors fought for the South and believed in the cause, but they owned no slaves. Most Southerners didn't.

It's easy - and correct - to point to slavery as the reason for the war, but the South wasn't trying to protect an abhorrent institution because they necessarily liked it. The fundamental fact is the economy of the Confederate States was grounded in the cheap labor slavery gave them. Leaders of the day knew if they did away with slaves, then the ag-based economy of the South was doomed.

The industrialized North could afford to claim the moral high ground because they didn't need slaves to operate their factories - they could "employ" child labor at pennines and not suffer the indignation of owning another human being.

This division lead to the States Rights issue - the North didn't need slaves, the South did and didn't think the North had the Constitutional right to force the South to change. In fact, they didn't legally have the ability short of a Constitutional amendment, and without the Southern votes that would never have happened.

[Iron Chef]

"Ramses to the white courtesy phone please? We're out of lamb's blood. Ramses...?"

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by Iron Chef

Let's talk about slaves.

"Ramses to the white courtesy phone please? We're out of lamb's blood. Ramses...?"

He's busy (Like I would be) pouring the coal's to Nefretiri.

[C5SilverBullet]

Originally Posted by vetteman9368

It was states rights, the right that they were fighting over WAS slavery though. Had it not been slavery, it would have been something else.

Correct. It was about states rights...the states rights to have slaves.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

[Skia]

Originally Posted by Thomas

If Commie Joe would have read the damn thread he would have seen that there was no shit slinging at all until he entered the fray. Liberals just KNOW that they are more enlightened and educated than the rest of the phlebecide. In this instance he is 100%

RONG


Phil.....Go suck on another Liberal politicians Dick and stay outta this discussion.

[78SA]

I see a lot of people here read different history books than I did when i went to school 30+ years ago. Oh yeah, it's revisionist history made by the left and progressives.

[04 commemorative]

Thomas

[kylebuck]

The souths gonna rise again......


:yeaeeeeeeeeeee HHAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW:

[kylebuck]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Mine does, when the Mrs is willing.

Praise Gesus!!!!

[Doug28450]

Originally Posted by TxAg

I don't fight the mentally challenged.

You could spot him 11 of the 12 rounds.

[78SA]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Mine does, when the Mrs is willing.

[Grey Ghost]

My ggg-grandfather joined the CSA at the start of the war and died a couple of years later. He was married and had three small children. He owned no slaves. His widow was left to raise the children on her own.

Do you REALLY think he and all the others left their home, their families, and everything else behind to go fight and die for some rich plantation owner to own slaves ? Do you know how many people actually owned slaves then ? Do you know how much they cost ? Do you know those ships were flying the AMERICAN flag that brought them over ?

What if Lincoln hadn't been elected to start with ? That is when the States started seceding. Do you know about his plan to colonize all the slaves ? He said, if he could preserve the Union by freeing slaves he would. If he could preserve the Union by not freeing them he would.

I hope Sherman is burning in hell. He and his army raged war on civilians in GA. There was a factory in Roswell, GA. they rounded up everyone working there and put them on a train to Chicago. That is only one of the war crimes the bastard committed. He should have been hanged for the things he did.

The South should have freed the slaves first and then fired on Ft. Sumter. Then we wouldn't have this discussion.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Do you know how many people actually owned slaves then ?

Nope. You?

Do you know how much they cost ?

Nope. Buck fiddy? You know?

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Getting back to the subject at hand, lets take a look at how truly pathetic the whole discussion really is. Its appalling that southerners today try to justify slavery and the killing of hundreds of thousands of Americans with some kind of false nobility associated with "states rights".

Do states rights trump the enslavement of people? Is that something that would cause you, today, to pick up arms against the federal government to defend?

"States rights" is what the descendants of slave owners use to justify the fact that their ancestors were horrible people. Its like some mass psychosis, it is denial on an epic scale. Blaming the war on the North over some bullshit "states rights" excuse makes them feel better about themselves than coming to terms with reality.

And the reality is that the people that died defending slavery deserved to die. There was no honor in their deaths. They were members of an evil society, and died defending those evil ideals.

YOU did not read my first post in this thread, DID YOU????

[BuckyThreadkiller]

For further thought - those who think that slavery was simply a Southern institution should remember that at the start of the war slavery was perfectly legal under Federal law. It was illegal in northern states by state law which was the premise that the CSA was formed to continue. HOWEVER - It was not until two years into the war and after the Confederate Army had made major inroads into the North - threatening Washington, did Lincoln - desperate for a rallying point - issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

How could the South go to war over something that was perfectly legal? Slavery was the issue but it was legal - what was at stake were the state's rights to determine their own laws as defined under the 10th Amendment.

Consider that Lincoln's Vice President and successor AND General Grant both were slave owners. As were 10 of the previous 15 American Presidents. Washington and Jefferson each owned over 200 slaves a piece.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Skia

If Commie Joe would have read the damn thread he would have seen that there was no shit slinging at all until he entered the fray. Liberals just KNOW that they are more enlightened and educated than the rest of the phlebecide. In this instance he is 100%

RONG


Phil.....Go suck on another Liberal politicians Dick and stay outta this discussion.

There was no "shit slinging" because everyone was in agreement or complacent with the idea of "states rights".

Its bullshit and too many people died to let that slide.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

There was no "shit slinging" because everyone was in agreement or complacent with the idea of "states rights".

Its bullshit and too many people died to let that slide.

Feel free to rebut history.

Slavery was legal in the US until the war was two years old. And then abolished by Executive Order, not in Congress or by Constitutional Amendment.

I'm not defending that slavery wasn't the major issue of Federal overstepping of constitutional authority leading up to the war, but as it was legal at the outset of the war, how could it have ben the reason the South went to war?

For slavery to have been the impetus for the war, wouldn't it have had to have been prohibited in order to cause the war?

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by BuckyThreadkiller

Feel free to rebut history.

Slavery was legal in the US until the war was two years old. And then abolished by Executive Order, not in Congress or by Constitutional Amendment.

I'm not defending that slavery wasn't the major issue of Federal overstepping of constitutional authority leading up to the war, but as it was legal at the outset of the war, how could it have ben the reason the South went to war?

For slavery to have been the impetus for the war, wouldn't it have had to have been prohibited in order to cause the war?

The above is obvious, which is why slavery in and of itself was NOT THE CAUSE OF THE WAR, maybe in the minds of a few yankees, damn few....but the FACTS were stated in my first post.....