The Civil War was NOT fought over Slavery

[brainisengaged]

The term is actually "secede", not "succeed".
And the action is "secession"

 

[LongGone]

The term is actually "secede", not "succeed".
And the action is "secession"

Thanks for the catch. Sad part is I am married to a former English teacher :-[

 

[subllibrm]

The Civil War was fought over those awful gray uniforms the southerners were wearing.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Personally, the war would be a "just" war if it was fought over slavery.  I have no problem with the North invading the South to free the slaves.  I do have a problem with the North invading the South to force them to rejoin the Union.  The Revolutionary war was fought over independence.  The Civil War was as well.  Of course, as previously stated, independence was primarily sought to ensure the continuation of slavery.

The complexity of why the war was fought included of issue of slavery. The bottom line was the war was fought to preserve the Union. The difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War was that we did not choose to be a colony of Great Britain and did not have representation. All states choose to be states and had representation even if the majority did not agree with them.  You can not have a country where states or regions can succeed* at will.

That could be called Union Exceptionalism! 

 

[Jo]

I don't have all the answers on this topic, but since I worked with several black people a while back, the subject of slavery and racism intrigued me.  I had the good fortune of getting to know my co-workers and seeing past the color of their skin.

Since that time, I have read more on the subject of slavery.  None of it was good.  I learned that some slave owners would purposely do what they could to "multiply" their slaves and then sell their children for profit.

I believe that one of the reasons there are many young black men who are members of gangs, etc. is that many of them come from homes where there are no fathers present.  We all need guidance, especially when we're young.

I side with the Quakers on the issue of slavery.

I also read that Prince Albert spoke on the subject of slavery in 1840:

The meeting was at Exeter Hall, at which Prince Albert spoke.  Not less than 4500 present.  Prince Albert:  ?I deeply regret that the benevolent and persevering exertions of England to abolish the atrocious traffic in human beings have not led to a satisfactory conclusion.  I sincerely trust that this great county, will not relax in its efforts until it has finally and forever put an end to that state of things so repugnant to the principles of Christianity and to the best feelings of our nature?.?  (Liberator, June 26, 1840, pg 3)

 

[Jubal Sackett]

There are probably as many reasons for the war as there were men who fought it. My own relations were from Cheatham County, TN, where I doubt there were 100 slaves in whole county. They enlisted in the 49th Tenn. Infty. Co. K. The 49th was recruited from Cheatham, Dickson, Montgomery and Robertson Counties.  These men had been told that hoard of savage barbarians was coming. This hoard was going to rape their women steal their stuff and burn their homes, modest as they were.  The 49th along with the 50th was sent down the Cumberland where they were tasked with the construction of Fort Donelson.  They are all that stands between Grant's invasion force and home.  The men of Montgomery and Cheatham Counties' homes are literally up river from the fort.

Other regiments joined the garrison as Grant approached.  The water batteries succeeded in severely damaging most of Commodore Foote's attacking  gunboats. Grant then attacked by land and was repulsed on the Confederate right. Grant realized that the Rebs had weakened their left to hold the right. He counterattacked and broke through. The 49th was placed in the anchor position in a new line on the far Confederate right. I have stood on the spot where my ancestors, a farmer in his 40's and his son in his early 20's stood shoulder to shoulder. For two hours  they traded buck and ball with flintlock smoothbores with the Yankee line less than thirty yards away. They held! These were farmers who had never fired a shot in anger.

The garrison was surrendered the following day and remained prisoners for over a year until they were exchanged at Vicksburg. The older ancestor was mustered out at that time  due to his health. The son stayed in and fought with Johnston at Jackson, MS and then with Hood around Atlanta. He was either wounded or took sick there and did not make the march back to Tennessee.

In Nov. of '64 the regiment charged at Franklin. The next morning 35 of them answered the roll. After Nashville there were only six and the chaplain left.  The 49th then ceased to exist on the muster rolls of the Army of Tennessee. Those six traveled with what was left of the army to NC . Those same six men gathered around their flag and made the last charge with Johnston at Bentonville ,NC. I don't know how many survived. There were over 300 when they mustered in at Ft. Donelson.

In front of the Robertson County Courthouse there is a monument to the men from Robertson County that fought with the 49th. At the top it reads, " For hearth and home." Would I have stood with them? In a heartbeat! I'm not worried about the political causes of the war. I don't care who's right and who's wrong in the big picture. Tennessee is home. You come to do her harm and I'll defend her with my last breath.

Jubal Sackett

 

[Bo]

The Civil War was fought over "succession."

The South succeeded over slavery.

Southerners did not fight for the rights of wealthy plantation magnates to own slaves nor did Northerners die to free them.  The North invaded to end the Southern rebellion against the Union.  The South fought to repel the "invaders."

Thus, it is correct to say that slavery led to succession, but succession led to war.

actually.....the morrill tariff led to succession (had slavery actually been an issue the union states that remained slave would have succeded also)

when the morrill tariff came into effect in 1861....I raised the tax in imported and exported goods from 20% to 47% bankrupting southern farmers.  This is what lead to the "states rights" view of the southerners.  Their claim was to the effect that the northern industries were so wildly different than southern farms that they could not possibly be ran in the same manner under the same policies.  So...they legally left the union. 

Slavery was brought into the mix at the emancipation proclamation that actually didn't free anyone.  Lincoln ordered the freedom of slaves in the rebelling states only (somewhere that he did not have jurisdiction to do so) and not the 2 remaining slave states that he actually had the power to declare free states.  thus...no slaves were freed due to this proclamation. 

The south fought a defensive war.  Had there been no invasion there would have been no war.  Fort sumtner no one was killed but the south won the battle after the retreat of the north.  The south did not pursue.  The north was warned multiple times to leave before any attack was ever made.  The northern aggression/greed to collect this money was the cause of the war. 

Also....at both the first and second monasses (bull run) the rebs chased the yanks all the way to the mason dixion line...and could have easily went into the north and overtake the whitehouse.....but again...the south did not want war....they were only wanting peace and to govern their own land as they see fit. 

when slavery did actually end.....it was ended by the 13th amendment.  The majority of the votes that passed the 13th amendment came from the south.

Also.  the first Louisiana regiment was 100% free black men who chose to fight for the confederacy (remember....succession nor the war were started over slavery.....so since they knew what was really goin on they understood that it was there home being invaded too)

also...Robert E. Lee, the confederate general, freed all the slaves he inherited because he believed slavery to be the greatest evil of man kind.  Mr Grant...the general of the northern army kept slaves for years after the war....claiming, and I quote, "Good help is hard to find" 

with all theses FACTS that can easily be checked and verified....its absolutely ignorant to believe that the war was over (or remotely had anything to do) with slavery

Lincoln only hoped to incite riots with the proclamation and he himself said he had no intention of ending slavery where it still existed.

 

[LongGone]

The Civil War was fought over "succession."

The South succeeded over slavery.

Southerners did not fight for the rights of wealthy plantation magnates to own slaves nor did Northerners die to free them.  The North invaded to end the Southern rebellion against the Union.  The South fought to repel the "invaders."

Thus, it is correct to say that slavery led to succession, but succession led to war.

actually.....the morrill tariff led to succession (had slavery actually been an issue the union states that remained slave would have succeded also)

when the morrill tariff came into effect in 1861....I raised the tax in imported and exported goods from 20% to 47% bankrupting southern farmers.  This is what lead to the "states rights" view of the southerners.  Their claim was to the effect that the northern industries were so wildly different than southern farms that they could not possibly be ran in the same manner under the same policies.  So...they legally left the union. 

Slavery was brought into the mix at the emancipation proclamation that actually didn't free anyone.  Lincoln ordered the freedom of slaves in the rebelling states only (somewhere that he did not have jurisdiction to do so) and not the 2 remaining slave states that he actually had the power to declare free states.  thus...no slaves were freed due to this proclamation. 

The south fought a defensive war.  Had there been no invasion there would have been no war.  Fort sumtner no one was killed but the south won the battle after the retreat of the north.  The south did not pursue.  The north was warned multiple times to leave before any attack was ever made.  The northern aggression/greed to collect this money was the cause of the war. 

Also....at both the first and second monasses (bull run) the rebs chased the yanks all the way to the mason dixion line...and could have easily went into the north and overtake the whitehouse.....but again...the south did not want war....they were only wanting peace and to govern their own land as they see fit. 

when slavery did actually end.....it was ended by the 13th amendment.  The majority of the votes that passed the 13th amendment came from the south.

Also.  the first Louisiana regiment was 100% free black men who chose to fight for the confederacy (remember....succession nor the war were started over slavery.....so since they knew what was really goin on they understood that it was there home being invaded too)

also...Robert E. Lee, the confederate general, freed all the slaves he inherited because he believed slavery to be the greatest evil of man kind.  Mr Grant...the general of the northern army kept slaves for years after the war....claiming, and I quote, "Good help is hard to find" 

with all theses FACTS that can easily be checked and verified....its absolutely ignorant to believe that the war was over (or remotely had anything to do) with slavery

Lincoln only hoped to incite riots with the proclamation and he himself said he had no intention of ending slavery where it still existed.

You have a whole lot of revisionist history there my friend but lets start with that in February 1861 seven slave states declared their secession from the US to form the Confederate States of America. The tariff was adopted on March 2, 1861 BECAUSE many tariff-averse Southerns had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. When you start with a false fact and build on it you are not going to get to the right conclusion. Also Grant owned one slave (his FIL owned slaves) and freed him in 1859.

 

[Bo]

The Civil War was fought over "succession."

The South succeeded over slavery.

Southerners did not fight for the rights of wealthy plantation magnates to own slaves nor did Northerners die to free them.  The North invaded to end the Southern rebellion against the Union.  The South fought to repel the "invaders."

Thus, it is correct to say that slavery led to succession, but succession led to war.

actually.....the morrill tariff led to succession (had slavery actually been an issue the union states that remained slave would have succeded also)

when the morrill tariff came into effect in 1861....I raised the tax in imported and exported goods from 20% to 47% bankrupting southern farmers.  This is what lead to the "states rights" view of the southerners.  Their claim was to the effect that the northern industries were so wildly different than southern farms that they could not possibly be ran in the same manner under the same policies.  So...they legally left the union. 

Slavery was brought into the mix at the emancipation proclamation that actually didn't free anyone.  Lincoln ordered the freedom of slaves in the rebelling states only (somewhere that he did not have jurisdiction to do so) and not the 2 remaining slave states that he actually had the power to declare free states.  thus...no slaves were freed due to this proclamation. 

The south fought a defensive war.  Had there been no invasion there would have been no war.  Fort sumtner no one was killed but the south won the battle after the retreat of the north.  The south did not pursue.  The north was warned multiple times to leave before any attack was ever made.  The northern aggression/greed to collect this money was the cause of the war. 

Also....at both the first and second monasses (bull run) the rebs chased the yanks all the way to the mason dixion line...and could have easily went into the north and overtake the whitehouse.....but again...the south did not want war....they were only wanting peace and to govern their own land as they see fit. 

when slavery did actually end.....it was ended by the 13th amendment.  The majority of the votes that passed the 13th amendment came from the south.

Also.  the first Louisiana regiment was 100% free black men who chose to fight for the confederacy (remember....succession nor the war were started over slavery.....so since they knew what was really goin on they understood that it was there home being invaded too)

also...Robert E. Lee, the confederate general, freed all the slaves he inherited because he believed slavery to be the greatest evil of man kind.  Mr Grant...the general of the northern army kept slaves for years after the war....claiming, and I quote, "Good help is hard to find" 

with all theses FACTS that can easily be checked and verified....its absolutely ignorant to believe that the war was over (or remotely had anything to do) with slavery

Lincoln only hoped to incite riots with the proclamation and he himself said he had no intention of ending slavery where it still existed.

You have a whole lot of revisionist history there my friend but lets start with that in February 1861 seven slave states declared their secession from the US to form the Confederate States of America. The tariff was adopted on March 2, 1861 BECAUSE many tariff-averse Southerns had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. When you start with a false fact and build on it you are not going to get to the right conclusion. Also Grant owned one slave (his FIL owned slaves) and freed him in 1859.

it was in response to the fight in congress over the tariff.  as we all know...a law doesn't pass overnight.....this was no exception. 

and as for grant freeing his slaves.....simply googling "did grant own slaves" will debunk your argument.  doing light deeper research will bring you to the realization that he did in fact own slaves after the war....

 

[subllibrm]

and as for grant freeing his slaves.....simply googling "did grant own slaves" will debunk your argument.   doing light deeper research will bring you to the realization that he did in fact own slaves after the war....

Using the same tools I can "prove" that George W. Bush planned the 9/11 attacks and that no planes hit the twin towers.  8)

 

[LongGone]

The Civil War was fought over "succession."

The South succeeded over slavery.

Southerners did not fight for the rights of wealthy plantation magnates to own slaves nor did Northerners die to free them.  The North invaded to end the Southern rebellion against the Union.  The South fought to repel the "invaders."

Thus, it is correct to say that slavery led to succession, but succession led to war.

actually.....the morrill tariff led to succession (had slavery actually been an issue the union states that remained slave would have succeded also)

when the morrill tariff came into effect in 1861....I raised the tax in imported and exported goods from 20% to 47% bankrupting southern farmers.  This is what lead to the "states rights" view of the southerners.  Their claim was to the effect that the northern industries were so wildly different than southern farms that they could not possibly be ran in the same manner under the same policies.  So...they legally left the union. 

Slavery was brought into the mix at the emancipation proclamation that actually didn't free anyone.  Lincoln ordered the freedom of slaves in the rebelling states only (somewhere that he did not have jurisdiction to do so) and not the 2 remaining slave states that he actually had the power to declare free states.  thus...no slaves were freed due to this proclamation. 

The south fought a defensive war.  Had there been no invasion there would have been no war.  Fort sumtner no one was killed but the south won the battle after the retreat of the north.  The south did not pursue.  The north was warned multiple times to leave before any attack was ever made.  The northern aggression/greed to collect this money was the cause of the war. 

Also....at both the first and second monasses (bull run) the rebs chased the yanks all the way to the mason dixion line...and could have easily went into the north and overtake the whitehouse.....but again...the south did not want war....they were only wanting peace and to govern their own land as they see fit. 

when slavery did actually end.....it was ended by the 13th amendment.  The majority of the votes that passed the 13th amendment came from the south.

Also.  the first Louisiana regiment was 100% free black men who chose to fight for the confederacy (remember....succession nor the war were started over slavery.....so since they knew what was really goin on they understood that it was there home being invaded too)

also...Robert E. Lee, the confederate general, freed all the slaves he inherited because he believed slavery to be the greatest evil of man kind.  Mr Grant...the general of the northern army kept slaves for years after the war....claiming, and I quote, "Good help is hard to find" 

with all theses FACTS that can easily be checked and verified....its absolutely ignorant to believe that the war was over (or remotely had anything to do) with slavery

Lincoln only hoped to incite riots with the proclamation and he himself said he had no intention of ending slavery where it still existed.

You have a whole lot of revisionist history there my friend but lets start with that in February 1861 seven slave states declared their secession from the US to form the Confederate States of America. The tariff was adopted on March 2, 1861 BECAUSE many tariff-averse Southerns had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. When you start with a false fact and build on it you are not going to get to the right conclusion. Also Grant owned one slave (his FIL owned slaves) and freed him in 1859.

it was in response to the fight in congress over the tariff.  as we all know...a law doesn't pass overnight.....this was no exception. 

and as for grant freeing his slaves.....simply googling "did grant own slaves" will debunk your argument.  doing light deeper research will bring you to the realization that he did in fact own slaves after the war....

Let's try it again. The tariff only passed BECAUSE seven states already declared their succession. It has nothing to do with how long it take a bill to pass.

Look at Slavery at White Haven website by the National Park Service. Grant's FIL owned slaves. Grant managed the farm for his FIL. In 1859 Grant freed William Jones, the only slave he was known to own. Many believe that his experience on the farm is why he felt strongly about abolishing slavery.

 

[Walt]

The Civil War was fought over "succession."

The South succeeded over slavery.

Southerners did not fight for the rights of wealthy plantation magnates to own slaves nor did Northerners die to free them.  The North invaded to end the Southern rebellion against the Union.  The South fought to repel the "invaders."

Thus, it is correct to say that slavery led to succession, but succession led to war.

The south fought a defensive war.  Had there been no invasion there would have been no war.  Fort sumtner no one was killed but the south won the battle after the retreat of the north.  The south did not pursue.  The north was warned multiple times to leave before any attack was ever made.  The northern aggression/greed to collect this money was the cause of the war. 

Ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha.

Yes, I can warn you multiple times that I am going to take over your house and you should leave before I take it over, and then call it "aggression" when you try to take back your house.

Also....at both the first and second monasses (bull run) the rebs chased the yanks all the way to the mason dixion line...and could have easily went into the north and overtake the whitehouse.....but again...the south did not want war....they were only wanting peace and to govern their own land as they see fit. 

What they wanted was to keep their slaves and profits, and didn't want anyone telling them it was wrong... oh, and "Gettsyburg"

also...Robert E. Lee, the confederate general, freed all the slaves he inherited because he believed slavery to be the greatest evil of man kind.

Why not tell the whole truth that Robert E Lee thought the action of the south was wrong, but his unwillingness to fight friends and neighbors in his home state caused him to fight alongside of them.  Yes, he thought slavery was wrong, but Robert E Lee was not the southern states. 

Lincoln only hoped to incite riots with the proclamation and he himself said he had no intention of ending slavery where it still existed.

Lincoln was a moderate, not an abolitionist; just like in the case of Robert E Lee, this argument picks up on one person's actions and attitudes and ignores the larger picture.