• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Was the civil war mainly due to slavery?

Yes, it was. Of course, Southern apologists will try to give all sorts of ideological reasons like the preservation of tradition and state's rights, but when it comes down to it there was a heavy economic incentive for the South to maintain the system of slavery.
 
Originally posted by: Rage187
Depends where you went to school.
Click to expand...
yep, most books that I read said that slavery was only brought into the issue because Lincoln could get french support since the french strongly opposed slavery.
 
Not entirely, but it made for a good rallying point to get the population behind the idea of a civil war.
Wouldnt have worked quite as well if the .fed's stated they wanted a war to limit the rights of states. That doesnt sell as well as ending slavery.

Kinda like waging war for oil doesnt sell as well as waging war against terror eh? 😱 😉
 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: OulOat
No, since blacks were still treated as animals after the war by both the South and the North.
Click to expand...
Exsqueeze me?
Click to expand...

As we all know, the formula for logic is p/n=2l.

Therefore, with two puncuation marks divided by the number of words in his post we have .06 (rounded). This clearly demonstrates that logic = .06 or 6%, which brings us to the conclusion that we must add an extra letter to the word logic. I propose the letter 'k'. Short, sweet, discreet. Logickally, our next approach will involve fact and reason, but for tonight this will have to do.
 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: OulOat
No, since blacks were still treated as animals after the war by both the South and the North.
Click to expand...
Exsqueeze me?
Click to expand...

I didn't know blacks were being lynched on a common basis in the North? Were there World War I veterans being lynched in the North because they were blacks? I know blacks in the North weren't treated equally, but some how I thought they were treated much better. I wonder why there were such a huge migration of blacks to the North, if their conditions weren't any better.
 
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: OulOat
No, since blacks were still treated as animals after the war by both the South and the North.
Click to expand...
Exsqueeze me?
Click to expand...

As we all know, the formula for logic is p/n=2l.

Therefore, with two puncuation marks divided by the number of words in his post we have .06 (rounded). This clearly demonstrates that logic = .06 or 6%, which brings us to the conclusion that we must add an extra letter to the word logic. I propose the letter 'k'. Short, sweet, discreet. Logickally, our next approach will involve fact and reason, but for tonight this will have to do.
Click to expand...

LOL 🙂

As for this thread.... I predict it quickly plummeting into redneck self-aggrandization.

It takes a lot of pride for a man to admit he has lost. Unfortunately the south has not yet mustered that pride and must still live in the distant past. An utter shame.
 
From what I learned in school, if the South decided not to secede from the Union, Slavery would not have been abolished in the South.
 
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: OulOat
No, since blacks were still treated as animals after the war by both the South and the North.
Click to expand...
Exsqueeze me?
Click to expand...

As we all know, the formula for logic is p/n=2l.

Therefore, with two puncuation marks divided by the number of words in his post we have .06 (rounded). This clearly demonstrates that logic = .06 or 6%, which brings us to the conclusion that we must add an extra letter to the word logic. I propose the letter 'k'. Short, sweet, discreet. Logickally, our next approach will involve fact and reason, but for tonight this will have to do.
Click to expand...
LOL. Sig worthy material!
 
Originally posted by: buzzsaw13
From what I learned in school, if the South decided not to secede from the Union, Slavery would not have been abolished in the South.
Click to expand...

Ya sure larned a lot thar' !!
 
Absolutely not, it was about states' rights. Specifically, a state's right to allow slavery. 🙂
 
Linflas

Linflas

Lifer
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
All threads about the Confederacy boil down to this subject.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until January, 1863 and only applied to territories not under the control of the US Government (which means that Che's beloved Maryland continued to be a slave state up until the passage of the 13th amendment). The main purpose of it was to prevent England and France from formally setting up diplomatic relations with the CSA.

My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.

Abraham Lincoln
Click to expand...
 
It was economics pure and simple.

The north wanted to take away the "cheap labor" advantage. There was no thought of "civil rights" or any of that.

Black soldiers fought in the civil war too. Nothing is as black and white as people would like to paint it today.

 
- North was largely Industrial, South was largely agricultural
- North wanted more protectionist tariffs so that Americans will buy more American goods
- South wanted low tarrifs because raising tariffs in any one country hurts the importing/exporting industry as a whole
- There was increasing talk of the eventual abolition of slavery, and Lincoln was painted as an abolitionist by the South
- The South believed they had the right to secede based on the doctrine of states' rights

That last point might seem out of place, but it wasn't like the South said, "They want to take away our slaves? Fine, then let's go to war!" They felt that they had the right to secede, and that the North wouldn't dare invade the South.

The simple answer to the question is no. When you think logically about it, the Union army wasn't down there with the goal to free slaves, their goal was to force the South to rejoin the Union. I know that sounds obvious, but when you really think about it, it basically answers the question. If the answer to the question was yes, then the Northern soldiers would have just set the slaves free, left some soldiers there to make sure they were freed, and the whole change of control part would be viewed as more of an accident.
 
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
It was economics pure and simple.

The north wanted to take away the "cheap labor" advantage. There was no thought of "civil rights" or any of that.

Black soldiers fought in the civil war too. Nothing is as black and white as people would like to paint it today.
Click to expand...
There was no cheap labor advantage. Sure, the slaves were cheap but the added cost of the slave master meant that the south was actually at an economic disadvantage overall. That's right. Farm production was cheaper and more efficient in the north even though they didn't have slaves. There were slavery opponents back then that argued against slavery on the grounds that the slaves would be more productive (and hence produce more GDP) if they were free.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top