Ben Shapiro - Was America Founded On Slavery?

[jammix]

While I agree with some of the video, the Civil War was not entirely about slavery, though that was what Lincoln focused on. Less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves so why would the 90% plus fight? Civil War was also about tax and economic policies which put the South at a disadvantage, but politically that was a much harder sell for Lincoln.

 

[theeedude]

OK, many valid points, but when he says "we fought the bloodiest civil war to end slavery," he should mention, "except the South, which fought the bloodiest civil war to continue slavery."

 

[bshole]

OK, many valid points, but when he says "we fought the bloodiest civil war to end slavery," he should mention, "except the South, which fought the bloodiest civil war to continue slavery."

LoL.... true dat....

 

[K1052]

Lol where did the money to pay back all the debt incurred during the revolution come from? Why did the southern states resist debt assumption under the federal government?

That slavery paid for a fair part of the revolution isn't a fact in any doubt. So yea, the country was founded on slavery in no small part and the system set up by the founders perpetuated it (intentionally or not) and set course for the eventual conflict to follow.

If the South didn't secede because of slavery maybe they shouldn't have mentioned that being the reason so often in their contemporary documents.

 

[zinfamous]

While I agree with some of the video, the Civil War was not entirely about slavery, though that was what Lincoln focused on. Less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves so why would the 90% plus fight? Civil War was also about tax and economic policies which put the South at a disadvantage, but politically that was a much harder sell for Lincoln.

What? of course it was. stop being stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

Lol where did the money to pay back all the debt incurred during the revolution come from? Why did the southern states resist debt assumption under the federal government?

That slavery paid for a fair part of the revolution isn't a fact in any doubt. So yea, the country was founded on slavery in no small part and the system set up by the founders perpetuated it (intentionally or not) and set course for the eventual conflict to follow.

If the South didn't secede because of slavery maybe they shouldn't have mentioned that being the reason so often in their contemporary documents.

It is odd how many people refuse to take the South's word for it when they described why they were seceding. I mean they straight came out and said 'we are leaving specifically because of slavery'.

 

[brycejones]

Less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves so why would the 90% plus fight?

This question has been answered MANY times in this very forum. Learn something

 

[Meghan54]

Although a long read, this is quite informative vis a vis the 1860's South and why non-slave owners fought to maintain the institution of slavery.

https://web.archive.org/web/2011032.../civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html

 

[unseenmorbidity]

OK, many valid points, but when he says "we fought the bloodiest civil war to end slavery," he should mention, "except the South, which fought the bloodiest civil war to continue slavery."

Bullshit... It was about State's rights.

 

[JSt0rm]

Bullshit... It was about State's rights.

false

 

[dank69]

Bullshit... It was about State's rights.

Oh what a surprise, you are one of "those" people.

 

[JSt0rm]

russia is using our strength against us. Our freedom to say whatever we want will also be our downfall. Fake news will cloud every issue. History will become meaningless in context and revisions will feel good and become the norm.

 

[JSt0rm]

basically what I'm saying is the internet was a bad idea.

 

[Meghan54]

Bullshit... It was about State's rights.

Yeah, the states' right to own slaves.

Ever wonder why, Mississippi for instance, explicitly stated this in their articles of secession?

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”---Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861.


The South wasn't interested in state's rights unless it was to further their interests in maintaining slavery.

For instance, the southern states/the Confederate states opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.

And remember, until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government.

 

[Jaskalas]

Ben Shapiro - Was America Founded On Slavery?

America was founded with slavers and slaves as a part of it, but no, America's founding principles are antithetical to slavery. All men created equal, etc. It takes an enduring strength to make good on that promise, and to resist the evil impulses of human nature with its divisions and disenfranchisement. It is much easier to split into tribes and attack one another than it is to learn to live together as one nation, as one people.

We continue that struggle to this day, to make good on the American promise.

 

[WHAMPOM]

It was all about the Northern States immigrant population overthrowing the Southern States controlling majority in Congress. State's Rights? The loss of the Southern States right to dictate the county's laws.

 

[Moonbeam]

russia is using our strength against us. Our freedom to say whatever we want will also be our downfall. Fake news will cloud every issue. History will become meaningless in context and revisions will feel good and become the norm.

You use the term fake news will cloud when the issue is that fake news is clarification when believed. You assume you know what is fake and what isn't but how does anybody know how true what they believe is? Imagine trying to sell the truth or fake news to people who know nothing. The truth is that we know nothing and if you know nothing and somebody tells you you know nothing you know they are right and if they tell you x y or z is the truth you smile wryly. We know things because being ignorant opens the door to ridicule. Our so called knowledge is a program we run to protect our egos. If you die to the sacred, everything you base your self respect on as an ego, only then can you know real ignorance that is wisdom. People buy fake news because they hate themselves and fake news comforts and supports them in their pain denial.

 

[zinfamous]

Bullshit... It was about State's rights.

the "state's right" to own slaves. Yes, that is true. It was only about slavery.

Your education failed you (It's OK, I also learned about the Civil War in the South. We were taught this same claptrap from the 7th-12th grade. It was never true) but worse--you chose to keep that failure close to your heart. At least until this day, one hopes.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

basically what I'm saying is the internet was a bad idea.

The internet was a great idea, letting everyone else in on it was the bad part.

I blame Microsoft for making computers too easy to use.

 

[woolfe9998]

FFS, will you civil war revisionists just STFU already.

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

The seceding states said exactly why the seceded: over slavery. There is no reason to disbelieve their own declarations of the reasons for secession. This debate is old, and stale. There never was a valid reason to believe that the southern states did not secede primarily over disagreements about slavery. Southern revisionism, like Holocaust denial, is a pseudo academic fraud meant to whitewash crimes of the past.

 

[zinfamous]

FFS, will you civil war revisionists just STFU already.

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

The seceding states said exactly why the seceded: over slavery. There is no reason to disbelieve their own declarations of the reasons for secession. This debate is old, and stale. There never was a valid reason to believe that the southern states did not secede primarily over disagreements about slavery. Southern revisionism, like Holocaust denial, is a pseudo academic fraud meant to whitewash crimes of the past.

dude, state's rights, bro!

I win the argument.

 

[unseenmorbidity]

Yeah, the states' right to own slaves.

Ever wonder why, Mississippi for instance, explicitly stated this in their articles of secession?

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”---Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861.


The South wasn't interested in state's rights unless it was to further their interests in maintaining slavery.

For instance, the southern states/the Confederate states opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.

And remember, until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government.

Several rights. Slavery was one of them.

 

[JSt0rm]

Several rights. Slavery was one of them.

oh thats cute. What are the other rights the south was fighting for?

 

[dank69]

oh thats cute. What are the other rights the south was fighting for?

Several

 

[woolfe9998]

dude, state's rights, bro!

I win the argument.

While I know you're being sarcastic here, I must say that the "state's rights" argument is particularly hilarious in that these idiots don't realize that it's exactly the same thing. Of course the south was arguing over "state's rights." They didn't think the federal government should be allowed to encroach on the rights of states...to permit slavery. "State's rights" was legal dressing for the argument in favor of slavery. It's exactly the same thing.

We ultimately outlawed slavery by way of a Constitutional Amendment precisely to head off the state's rights argument which had been used to justify its continuation. What modern day "revisionists" are doing is using the south's legal argument in favor of slavery as an alternative explanation to slavery.