Real reasons for the Civil War:

[jmdrake]

To say 'nothing could be further from the truth' is rather far fetched.

Slavery had a lot to do with it. There was a huge abolitionist sentiment among many people and this made for a very fractious political climate.

Now, the idea that slavery was the only reason is the kind of one-line, simplistic reasoning which is seems to be more and more common in the television age.

Certainly there are other reasons, and maybe they even played a bigger part than slavery. But slavery is just as real a reason as any other you can name.

QFT! This revisionist "The civil war had nothing to do with slavery" nonsense is getting old. I would suggest everyone under the illusion that slavery had nothing to do with the civil war go back and read the southern declarations of secession where they say point black "We're seceded to protect slavery". Were there other issues? Certainly! South Carolina tried to secede years before when Andrew Jackson was president over tariffs. Andrew Jackson threatened to hang John Calhoun over inciting this and invade South Carolina to enforce the tariffs. But somehow southerners by in large are never angry at Jackson over this.

Further let's look at the argument that most southerners weren't slave owners. Well most Americans today don't own oil companies! That doesn't mean that oil doesn't factor into our wars!

And yes. Lincoln wasn't about to immediately free the slaves. But he was going to stop the expansion of slavery into new territories! Also Lincoln was considering the same "compensated emancipation" plan Ron Paul talked about on Meet The Press before Lincoln was elected and he even TRIED such a plan for the states that didn't secede after he was elected and before issuing the emancipation proclamation. Does that mean that Lincoln was a "saint"? Of course not. He violated the constitution on more than one occasion, and was either or white supremacist or a political opportunist. And no he didn't have the courage to say "I will do whatever I take to end slavery no matter what" but no politician of any stature at the time did. Also doing so would have required changing the constitution and there simply wasn't the votes needed in the congress and the various state legislatures for that to be a reality. In fact that was the whole point of quibbling over the expansion of slavery.

I know this will not convince a single southern apologist and I expect people will continue to quote Lincoln out of context to "prove" their point that Lincoln was the "most evil president of all time" while ignoring the fact that Andrew Jackson threatened to do to South Carolina what Lincoln eventually did over secession.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[ChooseLiberty]

If only the southern states had known about how poorly the Feds deal with insurgencies things would probably be different.

[acptulsa]

The Missouri Compromise was about slavery more than tariffs or state vs. federal regulation of international trade. So was the "Bloody Kansas" fighting of the same time. Deep at the root of it, these other states' rights questions were in play, to be sure, but ask the common man at the time and you'd find out that the public itself was primarily inflamed by the slavery issue.

Southerners were generally quite poor. The share cropper system was endured in the South because the politicians mollified them by saying, "You have more than the blacks so don't complain." The class systems of the world are, often as not, all about keeping the third-lowest strata and second-lowest strata quiet about being robbed because they might lose their half a leg up on the lowest strata. This is why millions who could never afford a slave fought for the CSA--not tariffs or international trade.

Yes, the issues of the day were more complex than any elementary school textbood would indicate. That said, the histories aren't quite as revisionist as indicated...

[IcyPeaceMaker]

Drake, you're just plain wrong, your ad lib crap completely discredits you. The first post in this thread is accurate, your revisionist nonsense is pure yankee garbage.

[jmdrake]

Drake, you're just plain wrong, your ad lib crap completely discredits you. The first post in this thread is accurate, your revisionist nonsense is pure yankee garbage.

Yes. The above is intelligent debate.

Did you write this before or after drinking a gallon of moonshine?

Have you ever read the southern declarations of secession?

Or you aware of Lincoln's compensated emancipation attempt?

Do you know what the phrase "expansion of slavery" means?

Are you aware of Andrew Jackson's threat to invade South Carolina and the circumstances surrounding it?

Are you aware of Andrew Jackson's threat to hang John Calhoun and the circumstances surrounding that?

When you can honestly answer those questions (including the moonshine one) get back with us and attempt a debate.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

The Missouri Compromise was about slavery more than tariffs or state vs. federal regulation of international trade. So was the "Bloody Kansas" fighting of the same time. Deep at the root of it, these other states' rights questions were in play, to be sure, but ask the common man at the time and you'd find out that the public itself was primarily inflamed by the slavery issue.

Southerners were generally quite poor. The share cropper system was endured in the South because the politicians mollified them by saying, "You have more than the blacks so don't complain." The class systems of the world are, often as not, all about keeping the third-lowest strata and second-lowest strata quiet about being robbed because they might lose their half a leg up on the lowest strata. This is why millions who could never afford a slave fought for the CSA--not tariffs or international trade.

Yes, the issues of the day were more complex than any elementary school textbood would indicate. That said, the histories aren't quite as revisionist as indicated...

QFT. But it's so much easier to dismiss anybody that disagrees with you as "yankee garbage".

[IcyPeaceMaker]

No it's easy to dismiss yankee garbage as yankee revisionist garbage.

The states used to be soverign, your hero destroyed the soverignty of ALL the states, yours included. Any state has the right, under the constitution, to secede any time for any reason whatsoever. Let me spell it for you, R_i_g_h_t, get it?

No yankee whore or any other entity has the right to invade or commit war against any soverign, it was Lincoln's illegal war, just as illegal as Bush's global, endless war.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

It was my understanding that the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted when the South was winning the war. The proclamation had the effect of destabilizing the South, improving Lincoln's chances of being re-elected by appealing to Republican abolitionists, and effectively cutting off military support to the South from Britain and France. It was Lincoln's best political move of his career.

We tend to forget that the American Loyalists in the British Colony of New York lost in great shame to the American Patriots during the Revolutionary War. Such colonists had to start over after they were so bitterly defeated because everything was taken away from them. The Civil War likewise created an existential crisis which produced similar winners and losers. Why do we leave the south so naked when teaching the history of their defeat while we tend to clothe the American Loyalist so kindly? I would think that the Loyalists would be considered the greater traitors in comparison.
Anyway, our nation has gone through a lot of healing despite the shameful way the south is still depicted in history. One example of this healing was demonstrated by Presidential Candidate John Conally when he openly converted from a yellow dog, southern Democrat (a conservative) to that of a conservative Repuplican. Ironically, we haven't gone about establishing the more perfect Union we are today because of our victories together in the 2 great wars; but, to the contrary, we have become a more perfect Union because of our mutual butt kicking we collectively received in Vietnam.

[Mesogen]

Ever since I got into this Ron Paul thing, I've been baffled by this whole fascination some "libertarians" have with states' "rights" to enforce the institution of slavery. Some people who call themselves libertarian simply want more state sovereignty and they put that above individual freedom and sovereignty.

It reminds me of a debate I watched about the legalization of marijuana. The anti guy says that the pro people all scream state's rights when it comes to the legalization of weed. But then the same people cry against state's rights when it came to Jim Crow laws and especially slavery. I say the debate about state sovereignty is totally false. I don't give a crap how much sovereignty a state government or a federal government has as long as it doesn't interfere with MY personal, individual rights. If a state government is defending my rights from a tyrannical federal government (or world government) then great. If a federal government is defending my rights against the tyranny of a state government, then also great.

This thing about defending state's rights during the civil war have nothing to do with freedom or liberty, IMO.

[IcyPeaceMaker]

States rights was not to prolong slavery (which the south was planning to free slaves before the war), states rights and slavery are mutually exclusive concepts.