Home › Forums › Political Corner › Slavery was not the reason for the Civil War
This topic contains 17 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by 
FrankOne 2 years, 5 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
This is a topic I have seen before but I invite you to see for yourself.
The States issued Articles of Secession and Declarations of Causes for their secession from the Union; thus, it is possible to systematically divide the grievances stated in these documents into different categories, e.g https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession — States rights and slavery are the main reasons the States provided.
As for the rest of it, this is pretty basic history — the emancipation proclamation applied ONLY to states in rebellion against the Federal government. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and avoid war or a weaker nation, caused by fewer States being members.
You also have to look at the spirit of the times — new states being admitted to the Union were voting to be ‘free soil’, i.e. no slaves permitted. That was a threat to slave-holding States as more population, and more senators, would be from ‘free soil’ states — the power of the South was being diluted. Slavery was doomed, civil war or not, in another few decades. Remember, slavery was abolished in the UK in the 1830’s, THIRTY YEARS prior to the American civil war. As for lack of slave rebellions, most slaves ran away TO the North surreptitiously if they could, rather than fight their white masters. Bear in mind, all white men were required to engage in militia activities in the South, including patrols, or pay someone else to do it, and the slaves had no guns nor expertise in how to use or maintain them. Blacks did enlist in the Union Army, but only made up about 10% of those who served, largely because of politics, they weren’t admitted for most of the war because it was thought border states would secede if they were allowed to serve.
Slavery and indentured servitude are part of our history. One of the greatest tragedies of the war was Lincoln’s assassination: We never realized the plans for ’40 acres and a mule’, dividing the plantations and issuing the land to the laborers who worked it. Instead we had Jim Crow laws and the sharecropping system.
The reality of black poverty and violence is that about 90%+ of blacks are hard-working, middle class, law-abiding citizens (I work with many). The other <= 10% who embrace thug life, are the problem — it has nothing to do with their color or genetics, and EVERYTHING to do with culture. The culture of the urban and rural poor, black and white, is to blame. Government, of course, enables it through giveaway programs. Black illegitimacy and criminality, were not as high before the Great Society welfare programs of the 1960’s. If you want less violence, you legalize the drugs, and do not give money to single mothers, but rather, they have to put their children up for adoption by middle class families.
There were insurrections, Nat Turner’s being the most famous, a few decades before the Civil War. Slave insurrections have a LONG history. If you go back to ancient times, you had servile WARS in ancient Rome — literally SLAVE wars — the 3rd being the greatest, with tens of thousands of freed slaves participating. Of course, back then, the owners didn’t have rifles. And so, when a small band of trained gladiator slaves revolted in the 3rd War, they were MUCH more effective comparatively, than untrained, unarmed (except with knives) black men in the American South fighting against men with rifles and horses. In fact, they took 2 years to defeat as I recall. Of course, slavery in ancient Rome was not race-based. It is hard to revolt when your masters have guns and you don’t. I don’t think there’ve been many revolts in the Gulags of North Korea, for instance. Of course, they also kill your families.
Nat Turner’s revolt was quickly crushed.
Well, those behind starting next Civil War in the U.S. will claim the second American Civil War is because of bigotry due to all white men being born bigots whom need to be exterminated from this Earth.
The real reason for the U.S. Civil War was that the U.S. Civil War was a plan to divide and conquer the U.S. by the British banks. The same British banks behind the Opium Wars in China from 1839-1860.
This was a very brilliant plan.
The British banks lent the U.S. government money.
Then, when the wig party collapsed, they timed the moment when they called in their loans under threat of war with Britain.
As the British Banks expect, due to the wig party collapse, the Southern States has no representation in D.C. at that time. So, to pay the debts, the U.S. government imposed massive taxes on the Southern States.
These taxes would have driven the Southern States into poverty, so the South succeeded from the Union.
This started the Civil War. The British then sent embassies to the Confederate government, the British even has military officers accompanying some of the Confederate commanders to oversee their battles with the Union.
The British government were getting ready to formally ally with the Confederacy. The British even had their military ready to invade the Union from Canada.
This would have crush the Union army and paved the way for British to reconquer all of the U.S.
So Lincoln declared all the slaves free in the South, but not the North. This prevent British from formally allying with the South due to the British freeing their slaves before the U.S. Civil War.
Thus, Britain did not enter the war, the British Banks were paid off, and the South burned in the name of British greed and conquer.
As such, it was debts by government that started the first U.S. Civil War and this may start the second U.S. Civil War because there is not even wealth in the world to pay off the debts created by government.
But, these current government debts are fraud.
These debts are government loaning money from the globalist, and the loan money given back globalists through bailouts, except for the kickbacks to those in government, and while the American people do not receive any of this money the American people are on the hook for the loans with interest, and high inflation of the U.S. dollar.
The States issued Articles of Secession and Declarations of Causes for their secession from the Union; thus, it is possible to systematically divide the grievances stated in these documents into different categories, e.g https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession — States rights and slavery are the main reasons the States provided.
As for the rest of it, this is pretty basic history — the emancipation proclamation applied ONLY to states in rebellion against the Federal government. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and avoid war or a weaker nation, caused by fewer States being members.
You also have to look at the spirit of the times — new states being admitted to the Union were voting to be ‘free soil’, i.e. no slaves permitted. That was a threat to slave-holding States as more population, and more senators, would be from ‘free soil’ states — the power of the South was being diluted. Slavery was doomed, civil war or not, in another few decades. Remember, slavery was abolished in the UK in the 1830’s, THIRTY YEARS prior to the American civil war. As for lack of slave rebellions, most slaves ran away TO the North surreptitiously if they could, rather than fight their white masters. Bear in mind, all white men were required to engage in militia activities in the South, including patrols, or pay someone else to do it, and the slaves had no guns nor expertise in how to use or maintain them. Blacks did enlist in the Union Army, but only made up about 10% of those who served, largely because of politics, they weren’t admitted for most of the war because it was thought border states would secede if they were allowed to serve.
Slavery and indentured servitude are part of our history. One of the greatest tragedies of the war was Lincoln’s assassination: We never realized the plans for ’40 acres and a mule’, dividing the plantations and issuing the land to the laborers who worked it. Instead we had Jim Crow laws and the sharecropping system.
The reality of black poverty and violence is that about 90%+ of blacks are hard-working, middle class, law-abiding citizens (I work with many). The other <= 10% who embrace thug life, are the problem — it has nothing to do with their color or genetics, and EVERYTHING to do with culture. The culture of the urban and rural poor, black and white, is to blame. Government, of course, enables it through giveaway programs. Black illegitimacy and criminality, were not as high before the Great Society welfare programs of the 1960’s. If you want less violence, you legalize the drugs, and do not give money to single mothers, but rather, they have to put their children up for adoption by middle class families.
There were insurrections, Nat Turner’s being the most famous, a few decades before the Civil War. Slave insurrections have a LONG history. If you go back to ancient times, you had servile WARS in ancient Rome — literally SLAVE wars — the 3rd being the greatest, with tens of thousands of freed slaves participating. Of course, back then, the owners didn’t have rifles. And so, when a small band of trained gladiator slaves revolted in the 3rd War, they were MUCH more effective comparatively, than untrained, unarmed (except with knives) black men in the American South fighting against men with rifles and horses. In fact, they took 2 years to defeat as I recall. Of course, slavery in ancient Rome was not race-based. It is hard to revolt when your masters have guns and you don’t. I don’t think there’ve been many revolts in the Gulags of North Korea, for instance. Of course, they also kill your families.
Nat Turner’s revolt was quickly crushed.
And who were the ones who wrote the legislation? The rich. Southern, rich, slave owners. So naturally to them, it was about slavery. That’s the narrative that gets put out. But the reality is, the rest of the men in south weren’t fighting for 2% of the population in the south. They were fighting for themselves, and for the belief in the power of the states. The north had slaves, even during the war.
Lets see If I get this—some poor white farmer in central Alabama, is going to leave his lousy little 10 acres, wife and kid to go out and get his limbs blown off so some rich guy he doesn’t even know can own slaves? YEAH and if that makes sense to you I have SEVERAL bridges for sale and a slightly used UFO.
Anonymous6My ancestors didn’t fight, get captured and serve time in a POW camp, and/or die so that others could own slaves.
Think about it, an army of hostile forces entered there state and threatened their property and families, what do you expect for them to do?
Anonymous1Fast forward to 8:14 to listen to an actual Civil War Veteran explain what the south fought for.
And who were the ones who wrote the legislation? The rich. Southern, rich, slave owners. So naturally to them, it was about slavery. That’s the narrative that gets put out. But the reality is, the rest of the men in south weren’t fighting for 2% of the population in the south. They were fighting for themselves, and for the belief in the power of the states. The north had slaves, even during the war.
You do not even know the political events leading up to the U.S. Civil War.
The Wig party collapsed, this was mostly made up of Southern State representatives, while the the party in power were controlled by the North. As when the bill for the debts came due, the North voted to tax the South.
Lets see If I get this—some poor white farmer in central Alabama, is going to leave his lousy little 10 acres, wife and kid to go out and get his limbs blown off so some rich guy he doesn’t even know can own slaves? YEAH and if that makes sense to you I have SEVERAL bridges for sale and a slightly used UFO.
Pete, I brought that very point up in other thread. The fool disagreeing with me flat out stated he believed that was the case.
I read that only 2% of Southerners actually owned slaves. As a Canadian, it’s my understanding that the war was primarily about the South wanting to maintain it’s own sovereignty.
But that just doesn’t fit the Leftist agenda so I really don’t see any sort of reconciliation on this…
Anonymous1But that just doesn’t fit the Leftist agenda so I really don’t see any sort of reconciliation on this…
The Leftist Agenda wants you to believe the Civil War was about Slavery. This goes back to the letter Karl Marx wrote to Lincoln. The Cultural Marxist/SJW have always tried to say the Confederates were all fighting for Slavery. They teach it in our public schools and brainwash everyone to believe this. Read this letter from Karl Marx to Lincoln and see how the exact same Rhetoric is being used today by the SJW. Nothing new at all, the same Rhetoric as Karl Marx used from way back then.
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.
From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?
When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding “the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution”, and maintained slavery to be “a beneficent institution”, indeed, the old solution of the great problem of “the relation of capital to labor”, and cynically proclaimed property in man “the cornerstone of the new edifice” — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.
While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.
The gross conceptual error at work for many of you here is that anecdotes, personal memoirs, and excuses after the fact do not mean s~~~ when it comes to explaining why the war was foguth.
Why? Because individual men do not declare war.
The flawed example Pete and the others routinely use of the opinions of a poor farmer from Arkansas, Georgia, or somewhere serving in the Confederate armies means absolutely nothing because that man individually did write the secession ordnance, vote for secession, raise regiments, appoint officers, secure loans, buy arms, and all the rest.
That individual man can explain why he personally fought but that explanation does not explain why there was a war.
The small number of men collectively in control of the various state governments chose secession and war, not the farmers and clerks always bleated about by the apologists. The small number of men collectively in control of the various state government were very specific about the reasons they chose secession and war. They stated those reasons plainly in legislation, broadsheets, speeches, and editorials. They stated plainly and repeatedly that their decisions were made in order to defend slavery.
What they claimed after losing the war changed, but at the time they chose secession and war their claims were self evident.
You either take those men at their word or you brand them liars and their statements false. The choice is yours.
I didn’t decide that the US should go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I sure as hell fought in both places. That’s the issue many of you cannot seemingly grasp. While individual men may decide to fight and may have many reasons for doing, only governments decide whether a war occurs or not.
The men controlling the state governments which would become the CSA chose to go to war and their reasons for doing so are starkly plain. You can either take them at their word or you can keep repeating a comforting lie out of some childishly misplaced sympathy.
Finally, regarding Marx’s letter to Lincoln. While Lincoln received hundreds of thousand of letters from people worldwide, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Lincoln read every letter or agreed with it’s contents. The King of Siam (Thailand) wrote Lincoln regularly. Following Heavicidal’s “logic” that then means Lincoln was a Buddhist.
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
Anonymous1Finally, regarding Marx’s letter to Lincoln. While Lincoln received hundreds of thousand of letters from people worldwide, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Lincoln read every letter or agreed with it’s contents. The King of Siam (Thailand) wrote Lincoln regularly. Following Heavicidal’s “logic” that then means Lincoln was a Buddhist.
Ok, Lincoln may not have read the letter nor agreed with its contents. My point is that the SJW are saying the same things today. They are using Marxist Rhetoric, literally, same as in that letter.
Because individual men do not declare war.
It is individual men whom fight the war. A reason a soldier fights is the reason a soldier fight.
The excuses governments give for war are just that, excuses.
It still comes down to the reasons a individual becomes a soldier and fights in a war.
The gross conceptual error at work for many of you here is that anecdotes, personal memoirs, and excuses after the fact do not mean s~~~ when it comes to explaining why the war was foguth.
Why? Because individual men do not declare war.
Your right Bill, we should check what the Federal Government stated as the reason for their unlawful invasion of the South. Seeing as the U.S. Congress were the ones that ACTUALLY DECLARED WAR, Let me help:
AAAAAnd the war was fought to keep the “Union”, NOT TO INTERFERE WITH SLAVERY.
Reasons for Secession are just that, SECESSION.
Secession and WAR are two entirely seperate things. Your “Jumping the Shark” so to speak by blaming the WAR on the South. They just wanted to break up amicably.
The South declared Secession. The North Declared WAR. We’re talking about the WAR, right?
AAAAAnd the war was fought to keep the “Union”, NOT TO INTERFERE WITH SLAVERY.
The Union’s reason for preventing secession and waging war was to preserve the Union.
The southern states’ reason for secession and waging war was to defend slavery.
This isn’t mathematics. The reasons why two people go to war are never the reciprocal of each other.
Lincoln had pledged during the election campaign not to touch slavery where it already existed. He and the Union kept that pledge until January 1st, 1863 until geopolitical concerns forced a change.
Not touching slavery where it already existed wasn’t good enough for the southern elites. In 1857 they had finally won a political battle going on since at least 1820 when the USSC rules on the Dred Scott case. In that ruling, the USSC had opened the entire nation to slavery regardless of past compromises at the national level or local laws.
Now just as the entire nation was finally open to their “peculiar” institution, they saw a president elected who, when saying he wouldn’t touch slavery where it already existed, was signalling he wouldn’t allow the expansion of slavery nationwide.
Read what they wrote at the time and then call them liars if you wish. You’re free to hold your own opinions, you’re not free to make up or ignore the facts.
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
It still comes down to the reasons a individual becomes a soldier and fights in a war.
No, it doesn’t and, unlike you, I can say that as a soldier who fought in war.
You admirable desire to defend the statues and monuments because of the important history and heritage they represent has blinded you to that actual history and heritage.
None of those statues and monuments should come down because we need to remember what actually happened. The fact that so many here believe the war wasn’t about slavery, and that despite the words spoken and written by the southern elites at the time, means that we’ve already lost our grip on the truth.
We can’t afford to forget either out of hate, like the antifa filth, or out of misplaced sympathy, like you.
Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.
despite the words spoken and written by the southern elites at the time, means that we’ve already lost our grip on the truth.
We can’t afford to forget either out of hate, like the antifa filth, or out of misplaced sympathy, like you.We will agree that these statues and monuments need to stay (for various reasons), no dispute there. However, I gave you the words of President Lincoln and would guess that he knew the reasons for the Civil War far better than both of us combined. There was no “Misplaced sympathy” on either side. In fact, there was no sympathy at all (aside for the slave) and obviously still isn’t. While the dispute over slavery was solved by the most deadly war the USA has ever seen (and far worse than any war you fought in), the wound runs even deeper. People are full of hatred over the issue of state powers versus federal powers as we speak and it transcends race, religion and sex as well as politics. Say what you wish but I still see a very big elephant in the room and it has been there for a very long time.
Faust: The key is to look at primary sources — that is what I linked to earlier in this thread in the first response. A useful exercise, not just for this question, but for ALL media coverage and ALl critical analysis.
The objective of the media, in my opinion, is not to start another Civil War. Rather, through identity politics, it is a divide and conquer strategy. Controversy also sells copy and with it, advertising revenues increase along with the drama. Of course, it’s also an attempt to discredit the President, though he did a good enough job of that through arguing moral equivalence between neo Nazis and protesters. Also, not all protesters are anti fascist.
The media never discusses What extreme allegiance to nations and ‘tribes’ such as ethnicity and race ultimately often look like? I tell people it looks like Rwandan tribesmen massacring each other because they’ve been whipped into a frenzy by their leaders. Or like Adolph Hitler and his ‘Aryan tribalism’ as I like to call it. Or Japanese tribalism in the Rape of Nanking.
As for individual soldiers, they’re all ‘fighting for their country’ or ‘freedom’ or ‘the fatherland’ — I.e. Whatever they are told by government and media — The Americans firebombing Dresden and the Nazis running death camps alike. Propaganda and brainwashing by the Almighty State desensitize them to the killing.
I am far more interested in the reasoning of the Masters controlling these puppets, than I am in the puppets’ regurgitation of the propaganda they have been fed. The Masters of the antebellum South were most interested in maintaining their vast plantation estates and wealth; so the Root cause might well be considered the gentry wanting to maintain their vast wealth and income. Similarly, the REASON for supporting States Rights was to allow slavery in the South which in turn was to allow for the rich plantation owners to maintain their lifestyle. Concentrating power in the hands of the few can prove dangerous.
Also, ‘Leaders’ who make money off dividing us — The Reverand Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, nationalist leader Spencer and his Neo Nazi thugs, Etc, are all a special kind of evil. If they were out in my city I would be protesting against neo Nazi SOB’s but FOr keeping the monuments, and no, I am not Antifa, but libertarian.
I agree the monuments should stay. We need to remember important figures and events in history. It is a rich and complex and nuanced history. George Washington, for instance, was a slaveholder, who struggled with the practice and eventually freed his slaves upon his death. I’d also like more attention paid to the great abolitionists, and great black men like Booker T. Washington.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
