Civil War^2

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,271
917
136
The Civil war wasn't started by northern abolitionists or the Emancipation proclamation.

Indeed, it was started when the South decided they were not going to accept the federal government's punitive agricultural tariffs. Slavery was tacked on as a supposed moral justification after the war already started, as if the outlawing of a dying practice can be justified by the death of 600,000 people.

If the war were truly started because of slavery, you figure the abolitionists would have supported Lincoln from the beginning.

Update: forgot to mention that Lincoln's justification for war was to "preserve the union", i.e. the union which enabled the extraction of taxes from the south. That had nothing to do with slavery.
 
Last edited:

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
The war started over a dispute over the federal right to levy taxes and tariffs on state commerce. Slavery was tacked on as the supposed moral justification two years after the shooting started. The US could have abolished slavery without bloodshed like every other civilized country on Earth.

And if you think the southern states would never have abolished slavery due to its economic impact, consider how the UK abolished slavery in the Commonwealth even when their agricultural interests stood to lose far more revenue than the southern states would have.

No, the war started over South Carolina firing on Fort Sumter.

Slavery was tacked on later because it was wrong and made no sense to keep it once the war got going.

The US may have abolished slavery without bloodshed, but who knows how long that would have taken. The South would not entertain a singular thought of abolishing their precious institution up until 1860 and pitched the biggest political tantrum of US history after a president was elected who did not properly support slavery. And to think the US situation was similar in any real way to Britain's is just more historical ignorance and speculative revisionism.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,271
917
136
No, the war started over South Carolina firing on Fort Sumter.

Slavery was tacked on later because it was wrong and made no sense to keep it once the war got going.

The US may have abolished slavery without bloodshed, but who knows how long that would have taken. The South would not entertain a singular thought of abolishing their precious institution up until 1860 and pitched the biggest political tantrum of US history after a president was elected who did not properly support slavery. And to think the US situation was similar in any real way to Britain's is just more historical ignorance and speculative revisionism.

Saying slavery caused the civil war is revisionism and modern day whitewashing of Lincoln's tyrannical ways.

The war started when federal troops refused to leave South Carolina territory, which became sovereign when the state seceded over the tax dispute. The federal soldiers were actually offered passage back to the North but Lincoln ordered them to remain, hence instigating the war.

I would argue the British situation was even more difficult to resolve because certain British interests in the Carribean and India lost even more money than the south lost to abolition. Of course they still managed to avoid a bloody civil war.
 
Last edited:

mizzou

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2008
9,734
54
91
if the south didn't have a slave based economy, there would have been no civil war

just look at the fucking border state skirmishes before the civil war, they existed and were caused by two opposing sides, pro or anti slavery
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
Saying slavery caused the civil war is revisionism and modern day whitewashing of Lincoln's tyrannical ways.

Maybe you should read the primary documents of the era, such as the declarations of secession, which mention the preservation of the institution of slavery among the slave holding states.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,271
917
136
Maybe you should read the primary documents of the era, such as the declarations of secession, which mention the preservation of the institution of slavery among the slave holding states.

Sure it was mentioned. But it's not the primary instigator of the conflict. Go read Lincoln's speeches about how he supported the status quo on slavery *as long as* the south accepted federal taxation.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,271
917
136
if the south didn't have a slave based economy, there would have been no civil war

just look at the fucking border state skirmishes before the civil war, they existed and were caused by two opposing sides, pro or anti slavery

Those minor skirmishes were exactly that, a sideshow on an issue that was largely irrelevant after 1850. How many people died in those border wars, compared to the actual Civil War?

The south would have seceded even if their plantations were worked with paid labor.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Bull. The Southern states left the Union over slavery. End of story.

Everything else is a myth perpetrated by the South becasue who wants to admit they caused all that death and destruction over slavery.

btw, just a reminder that slavery includes things like the right of a white slaveowner to rape his slave women and children, protected by the law.

just so we are clear on what the South was fighting for.

Read up a bit here:

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/lessons/ushistory/19thcentury/nullify6.htm

The other poster was correct in his assertion that the North and South had been fighting before slavery became a "topic". The fighting was about tariffs that were basically punitive to the South, but benefited the North. IIRC, Union troops were marched to SC twice to forcibly collect etc.

Fern
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
The republicans do, the liberals will be too busy demanding that the republicans fund both sides of the war because the liberals are too lazy to work for their money.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,271
917
136

LOL @ three of your links listing taxation or economics at the very top of the list.

As I asked before, if slavery were the primary issue for war, why did Lincoln support the status quo on slavery post Missouri Compromise?
 
Last edited:

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
Civil war?
Like the last one really decided anything...?
Still south vs north.
Look at the election map sometime...
And so here we are again.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Saying slavery caused the civil war is revisionism and modern day whitewashing of Lincoln's tyrannical ways.

The war started when federal troops refused to leave South Carolina territory, which became sovereign when the state seceded over the tax dispute. The federal soldiers were actually offered passage back to the North but Lincoln ordered them to remain, hence instigating the war.

Slavery was the overriding factor, and to say otherwise is willful stupidity. Slavery is part of nearly every major issue relating to North-South division and conflict. The war started because the South threw a bitch hissy fit over Lincoln's election, seceded, then fired on a federal fort. All of this is primarily due to their relentless defense of slavery. Their actions before and during the war were nothing but monstrous miscalculations and mismanagement, politically, economically, militarily, and morally. They were short sighted, racist, reactionary, treasonous, and hypocritical.

LOL @ three of your links listing taxation or economics at the very top of the list.

You act as if slavery wasn't an economic issue. Fool.

As I asked before, if slavery were the primary issue for war, why did Lincoln support the status quo on slavery post Missouri Compromise?
Because Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery and determined to keep the Union together, and only became committed to it's abolition when the Union was already ripped apart.

The south would have seceded even if their plantations were worked with paid labor.

LOL, keep pulling stuff out of your ass and pretty soon you'll be covered in shit.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,271
917
136
Slavery was the overriding factor, and to say otherwise is willful stupidity. Slavery is part of nearly every major issue relating to North-South division and conflict. The war started because the South threw a bitch hissy fit over Lincoln's election, seceded, then fired on a federal fort. All of this is primarily due to their relentless defense of slavery. Their actions before and during the war were nothing but monstrous miscalculations and mismanagement, politically, economically, militarily, and morally. They were short sighted, racist, reactionary, treasonous, and hypocritical.

Sure, whatever. The contemporary discourse clearly indicates taxation and states rights as the primary reason for secession. Lincoln didn't even run on an anti-slavery platform in 1860. Your assertions are directly contrary to historical evidence.

I will note that some states' secession documents did give slavery as a reason, probably because enforcement of the Fugitive Slaves Act was a contentious issue at that time. However that act was only a decade old at the time, whereas taxation has been an issue for much longer.

Also how exactly is the South responsible for starting the war? When South Carolina seceded, federal troops were trespassing on her sovereign territory. The troops refused to leave when offered passage back to the North (on Lincoln's orders). The North started the war by insisting on their right to trespass.

You act as if slavery wasn't an economic issue. Fool.

A minor one compared to the punitive taxes levied by the north. Sweet name-calling, by the way. Definitely boosts your argument.

Because Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery and determined to keep the Union together, and only became committed to it's abolition when the Union was already ripped apart.

Hah, The south never asked for expansion of slavery. So your argument is irrelevant to begin with.

Also what exactly is so sacred about the Union that requires the deaths of hundreds of thousands to preserve?

LOL, keep pulling stuff out of your ass and pretty soon you'll be covered in shit.

I'm shattered. :)
 
Last edited:

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Indeed, it was started when the South decided they were not going to accept the federal government's punitive agricultural tariffs. Slavery was tacked on as a supposed moral justification after the war already started, as if the outlawing of a dying practice can be justified by the death of 600,000 people.

If the war were truly started because of slavery, you figure the abolitionists would have supported Lincoln from the beginning.

Update: forgot to mention that Lincoln's justification for war was to "preserve the union", i.e. the union which enabled the extraction of taxes from the south. That had nothing to do with slavery.

The Slavery Issue Aside.

I think the south was 1000% Right . The federal government began imposing its will on the states . Thats not comstitional . The federal government exist for one purpose and one purpose only. Central leader ship in a time of war that can issue currency for the common good. NOT to Impose LAWS . THAT is STATES RIGHT . Interstate commerace that not constitional Going beyond the orginal charter. The federal government has no right to TAX unless its war. The amount provided to the federal government threw legal interstate commerace is substancle. Duties Ports So much is made by the feds threw constitional means . Ya the south had ever right on these grounds and more.

Put the slave issue in and the south is wrong.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,271
917
136
^

Of course slavery is wrong. But the notion that hundreds of thousands of people should die to supposedly abolish a practice that was already rapidly disappearing in the Western world is far fetched. Of course the Civil War established a precedent for increasing centralization of power in the federal apparatus that has continued unabated to this day, and turned an entire citizenry into slaves of the government.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Sure, whatever. The contemporary discourse clearly indicates taxation and states rights as the primary reason for secession. Lincoln didn't even run on an anti-slavery platform in 1860. Your assertions are directly contrary to historical evidence.

Honest discourse clearly indicates slavery as being a major influencing factor in nearly every cause for the Civil War, including states' rights. In fact, the South was quite anti-states' rights in many regards. Example: They appealed on Constitutional grounds that northern states MUST obey the fugitive slave laws, negating the state rights up north... then turned around and made slavery legal in their own half-baked constitution, instead of leaving it up to individual states. States' rights heh, yeah, only when it served them or otherwise upheld their precious slavery. The only right they really cared about was their "right" to own and subjugate human beings.

Also how exactly is the South responsible for starting the war? When South Carolina seceded, federal troops were trespassing on her sovereign territory. The troops refused to leave when offered passage back to the North (on Lincoln's orders). The North started the war by insisting on their right to trespass.

Secession is unconstitutional and how they decided that federal property is suddenly theirs was illegal, treasonous, and firing on northern troops is an act of war.

Hah, The south never asked for expansion of slavery. So your argument is irrelevant to begin with.
The South (and North) were preoccupied with the expansion of slavery and the balance of power implications that would ensue, as well as many people in the South wanting it to spread because of virulent racism and and some in the North not wanting it to spread because of moral sentiments.

I feel compelled to say that I am not a Confederate basher or a Union ass-kisser... I feel that I am very objective. That does not jive well with some of the revisionist history first started by Confederate sympathizers in 1866 or the ignorant neo-confederates we have today.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Indeed, it was started when the South decided they were not going to accept the federal government's punitive agricultural tariffs. Slavery was tacked on as a supposed moral justification after the war already started, as if the outlawing of a dying practice can be justified by the death of 600,000 people.

If the war were truly started because of slavery, you figure the abolitionists would have supported Lincoln from the beginning.

Update: forgot to mention that Lincoln's justification for war was to "preserve the union", i.e. the union which enabled the extraction of taxes from the south. That had nothing to do with slavery.

The north did not need to justify the war, they didn't start it.The South seceded from the Union and started the war for one reason, and that reason was to preserve their right to own slaves.

It isn't relevant that Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery, what is relevant is the people who started the war thought he or the Union was going to sooner or later.

People who deny this keep saying Lincoln didn't fight the war over slavery, but that's not relevant because he didn't start the war. The people who started it started it over slavery.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Sure, whatever. The contemporary discourse clearly indicates taxation and states rights as the primary reason for secession.

I will note that some states' secession documents did give slavery as a reason, probably because enforcement of the Fugitive Slaves Act was a contentious issue at that time. However that act was only a decade old at the time, whereas taxation has been an issue for much longer.

Also how exactly is the South responsible for starting the war? When South Carolina seceded, federal troops were trespassing on her sovereign territory. The troops refused to leave when offered passage back to the North (on Lincoln's orders). The North started the war by insisting on their right to trespass.


The big lie about the Civil War came about after the war as a way of white-washing what the South did, in seeking to make their cause honorable in a world that no longer thought slavery was acceptable.

The states had no right to secede. And the United States was attacked.

At least you don't completely deny the historical record, the clear reason for secession and the start of the war was the preservation of slavery.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,271
917
136
Honest discourse clearly indicates slavery as being a major influencing factor in nearly every cause for the Civil War, including states' rights. In fact, the South was quite anti-states' rights in many regards. Example: They appealed on Constitutional grounds that northern states MUST obey the fugitive slave laws, negating the state rights up north... then turned around and made slavery legal in their own half-baked constitution, instead of leaving it up to individual states. States' rights heh, yeah, only when it served them or otherwise upheld their precious slavery. The only right they really cared about was their "right" to own and subjugate human beings.

The Fugitive Slaves Act was passed as a federal law. The southern complaint that northern states refused to enforce it is valid from a legal point of view. If northern states are allowed to disregard federal law, why shouldn't the southern states be allowed to do the same?

Secession is unconstitutional and how they decided that federal property is suddenly theirs was illegal, treasonous, and firing on northern troops is an act of war.

Never was illegal. In fact some northern states threatened to secede over the Fugitive Slaves Act. Kentucky and Virginia threatened to secede over the Alien and Seditions Act.

Moreover, treason is defined as war against the States, i.e. the individual states, not the United States. If anyone is guilty of treason, it's Lincoln.

The South (and North) were preoccupied with the expansion of slavery and the balance of power implications that would ensue, as well as many people in the South wanting it to spread because of virulent racism and and some in the North not wanting it to spread because of moral sentiments.

Implying northerners weren't racist. Lincoln wanted to deport blacks to Africa.

I feel compelled to say that I am not a Confederate basher or a Union ass-kisser... I feel that I am very objective. That does not jive well with some of the revisionist history first started by Confederate sympathizers in 1866 or the ignorant neo-confederates we have today.

The deifying of Lincoln is the real revisionism of history. The idea that hundreds of thousands should die to consolidate the power of the federal government is repulsive. Asserting that they died to free the slaves when that was nothing more than an afterthought added to justify Lincoln's war is even more repulsive.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,271
917
136
The big lie about the Civil War came about after the war as a way of white-washing what the South did, in seeking to make their cause honorable in a world that no longer thought slavery was acceptable.

The states had no right to secede. And the United States was attacked.

At least you don't completely deny the historical record, the clear reason for secession and the start of the war was the preservation of slavery.

That is the most grotesque lie of all. The union was a voluntary compact, states couldd leave at any time, and many states (including northern ones) used the threat of secession as a trump card against consolidation of federal power. The notion that secession was illegal is pure revisionism.

Of course after the war the feds made it illegal, but that's beside the point.
 
Last edited:

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
The Fugitive Slaves Act was passed as a federal law. The southern complaint that northern states refused to enforce it is valid from a legal point of view. If northern states are allowed to disregard federal law, why shouldn't the southern states be allowed to do the same?

Apparently you missed the point, some northern states were claiming states' rights in opposition to the Act, but did the South have their back? Oh snap, that's right, the South only squawked states' rights when it served them.

Never was illegal. In fact some northern states threatened to secede over the Fugitive Slaves Act. Kentucky and Virginia threatened to secede over the Alien and Seditions Act.

What do you mean never. Is it in the Constitution? And who cares if a state threatened, what matters is is actually doing it, and none did until 1860.

Moreover, treason is defined as war against the States, i.e. the individual states, not the United States. If anyone is guilty of treason, it's Lincoln.

Treason, Article 3 Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Implying northerners weren't racist. Lincoln wanted to deport blacks to Africa.

Most Northerners were racists is the traditional sense as pretty normal at that time, but that doesn't translate into the very abnormal, revolting racism of abject bondage. Having mildly racist beliefs is not the same as conducting inhuman enslavement. You are bordering on being a slavery apologist by not accepting basic distinctions.

The deifying of Lincoln is the real revisionism of history. The idea that hundreds of thousands should die to consolidate the power of the federal government is repulsive. Asserting that they died to free the slaves when that was nothing more than an afterthought added to justify Lincoln's war is even more repulsive.

Many died to because the South wanted slavery and the North wanted to preserve the Union. Freeing slaves was a political, economic, and militarily wise thing to do at that time and was also a humane and moral thing to do once the fight was on, since it's the main reason the South was batshit crazy and the North no longer had to put up with that embarrassment.

The evidence of how central slavery was to the South's actions is not even debatable. Example: Southern leaders took offense that northern states have “denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery” and “permitted open establishment among them of [abolitionist] societies ...” In other words, northern and western states should not have the right to let people assemble and speak freely—not if what they say might threaten slavery. Everything the South did and said had slavery as a central component. Seriously, do we really need to bring in all the ugly quotes from southern leaders right before and during the war that unflinchingly shows their sacred devotion to white superiority and slavery?