Quantcast

Was the American Civil War really fought over slavery?

FUS RO DAH! 2012/02/24 19:21:19
Related Topics: War, Slavery
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • dan 2012/11/25 22:19:22
    dan
    +8
    the Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred no it was not about slavery it was about state rights, check the history when the north started to loose the fight he through slavery in the mix to gain support but slavery is not what the war was over. ab used it as propaganda, the slaves were bought by the black african's the were there prisoners they no longer wanted, but the sad thing was the ones brought over had children when they got here, thats when it went wrong the original slaves were criminals the new ones were not they were innocent people. born into it thats were they should have separated the right form the...
    the Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred no it was not about slavery it was about state rights, check the history when the north started to loose the fight he through slavery in the mix to gain support but slavery is not what the war was over. ab used it as propaganda, the slaves were bought by the black african's the were there prisoners they no longer wanted, but the sad thing was the ones brought over had children when they got here, thats when it went wrong the original slaves were criminals the new ones were not they were innocent people. born into it thats were they should have separated the right form the wrong, Just because your dad or grandfather was a criminal does not make you a criminal. thats were people go wrong with thinking the know about the war with little details they find on the web where only 20% of people know what there talking about.
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • dan 2012/11/25 22:19:22
    dan
    +8
    the Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred no it was not about slavery it was about state rights, check the history when the north started to loose the fight he through slavery in the mix to gain support but slavery is not what the war was over. ab used it as propaganda, the slaves were bought by the black african's the were there prisoners they no longer wanted, but the sad thing was the ones brought over had children when they got here, thats when it went wrong the original slaves were criminals the new ones were not they were innocent people. born into it thats were they should have separated the right form the...
    the Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred no it was not about slavery it was about state rights, check the history when the north started to loose the fight he through slavery in the mix to gain support but slavery is not what the war was over. ab used it as propaganda, the slaves were bought by the black african's the were there prisoners they no longer wanted, but the sad thing was the ones brought over had children when they got here, thats when it went wrong the original slaves were criminals the new ones were not they were innocent people. born into it thats were they should have separated the right form the wrong, Just because your dad or grandfather was a criminal does not make you a criminal. thats were people go wrong with thinking the know about the war with little details they find on the web where only 20% of people know what there talking about.
    (more)
  • RogerCoppock 2012/03/05 04:49:08 (edited)
    RogerCoppock
    Slavery, specifically the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 which required free state residents to return escaped slaves and the issue of the new territories, was one of the issues that started the American Civil War.
  • jimrthy BN-0 2012/02/25 18:18:51
    jimrthy BN-0
    It was, and it wasn't.

    It was about things like industrialism vs. an agrarian lifestyle. Tariffs and import fees. Money stolen from the Southern States and funneled to infrastructure improvements in the North. A political system that really resembled the feudal system vs. one that at least offered the faint hope of social mobility.

    The Southern economy was based upon slavery. Which was an incredibly vile institution, but no one except a few flaming liberals cared. Even the ones who recognized it as the evil it was (and is) couldn't take the next logical step and free their slaves.

    It was all based on the model of Athenian democracy. They believed that the rich people who had slaves had the time and resources needed to be educated and wise and make smart choices when it came to politics. The rest? Well, they just needed to work harder, earn enough to by enough land (and slaves) to get the leisure time it took to get involved.

    The country was expanding west. As long as the slave states had fairly equal representation in the federal government, they could maintain that evil lifestyle. The Republicans' plan seems to have been to expand, add States and Senators, and choke off the South to force an end to slavery.

    Not that they believed Blacks and Whites could live peacefully s...











    It was, and it wasn't.

    It was about things like industrialism vs. an agrarian lifestyle. Tariffs and import fees. Money stolen from the Southern States and funneled to infrastructure improvements in the North. A political system that really resembled the feudal system vs. one that at least offered the faint hope of social mobility.

    The Southern economy was based upon slavery. Which was an incredibly vile institution, but no one except a few flaming liberals cared. Even the ones who recognized it as the evil it was (and is) couldn't take the next logical step and free their slaves.

    It was all based on the model of Athenian democracy. They believed that the rich people who had slaves had the time and resources needed to be educated and wise and make smart choices when it came to politics. The rest? Well, they just needed to work harder, earn enough to by enough land (and slaves) to get the leisure time it took to get involved.

    The country was expanding west. As long as the slave states had fairly equal representation in the federal government, they could maintain that evil lifestyle. The Republicans' plan seems to have been to expand, add States and Senators, and choke off the South to force an end to slavery.

    Not that they believed Blacks and Whites could live peacefully side by side as equals. Lincoln wrote an eloquent plea to some free Black leaders to let him (and the rest of the government) help them start a colony in South America where they could stand a chance of starting lives where they could stand a chance at being self-sufficient. Since, obviously, their "inferior race" could never hope to prosper as long as it was too close to the "superior" whites.

    Yeah. Pretty much *everyone* back then was a disgusting racist.

    Anyway. The *vast* majority of the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy were just po' white trash whose family would never have a prayer of owning a slave. That was sort of the modern economic equivalent of owning a luxury sports car, or maybe a yacht. *They* didn't much care about the "right" of the rich to own slaves.

    This is the sort of question that is far too easy to answer simply. People like short, easy answers. The Confederate leaders said it was all about slavery. What they meant then is a lot more complicated than what we mean by that today.

    Lincoln really shifted the focus onto slavery at Gettysburg. France and England were thinking about coming in on the Confederacy's side (probably because a divided America would have given them a chance to renew their colonial interests). Lincoln changed the focus to a war about people. Despite popular opinion, he didn't free a single slave. He just made a brilliant political move that let high school history teachers oversimplify a horrible and horribly complex issue.

    Historians after the war didn't realize this. It wasn't until around 1950 that people started noticing that "Oh, yeah. The slaves were people too" and caring about *their* side of the story. It's very educational to look at history books from the early 20th century about the war. Or from people who were alive during it.

    There's been a sort of pendulum reaction against that. Which is why pretty much anyone who talks about States' Rights these days is almost immediately labeled a racist.
    (more)
  • Latti Ice Ganga Gangsta of ... 2012/02/25 06:28:28 (edited)
    Latti Ice Ganga Gangsta of PHAET
    Yes, it was about state rights in owning slaves. What people don't comprehend is that it is Individual rights, State rights, and then the Federal government. The states trampled over individual rights and liberties, which was against the 'Constitution'.



    It also went against the Revolutionaries who fought during the Revolutionary war before hand. Black Americans helped in defeating the Brits, due to having double agents and much more.
  • jimrthy... Latti I... 2012/02/25 18:32:36
    jimrthy BN-0
    Sadly, the Constitution back then absolutely recognized slavery (which almost everyone can agree now was horrible). Amending that away was pretty much the only good thing that came out of that awful war.

    European immigrants back then generally didn't recognize that people with darker skin were real people too. Slave owners (some of them, at least) honestly seemed to believe that they were saving these wretched savages from lives of misery (not to mention eternal damnation) and preparing their souls to Walk With Jesus. What's an occasional whipping when you're training some lazy good-for-nothing (or maybe his kids) to be a good, civilized human being? They had plenty of Biblical support for this.

    Kind of like modern Bible thumpers who pretend to come up with scientific excuses for keeping gay marriage illegal.

    From the slaves' viewpoint, it only made sense to be as lazy, useless, and wasteful as possible. It's been that way throughout history. If you don't have any hope for advancement, why work any harder than you have to?

    Slavery was (and is) about as evil as it gets. It ranks up there with rape and abusing children. It's *way* too easy to go with a simplistic answer on this question.
  • Latti I... jimrthy... 2012/02/25 18:57:42 (edited)
    Latti Ice Ganga Gangsta of PHAET
    Frederick Douglas also believed the Constitution was pro slavery, until he was able to talk to one of the founding fathers about the 3/5 claim. After discussing it vigorously, it was discovered the 3/5 clause was about representation; not being 3/5 of human.

    Secondly, Black American slaves still came out with inventions and innovation; though many of their findings wasn't claimed as theirs. Black Americans were hardworking, even though they endured free labor. You also, have to read African history to comprehend, what took place before the slave trade. You have to read about the deception and attempt to distort history by the Western Europeans.
  • jimrthy... Latti I... 2012/03/05 04:41:19
    jimrthy BN-0
    +1
    This is all true.

    Reading that side of history makes me cry. It's purely evil stuff.
  • abner peabody 2012/02/24 20:48:23
  • say what? 2012/02/24 20:06:15
    say what?
    no
  • D D 2012/02/24 19:57:52
    D D
    No. It was about state rights.
  • The Sane One 2012/02/24 19:38:01
    The Sane One
    +2
    No, slavery was only a side issue. The primary issue was state rights vs federal rights.
  • TheTruth1313 2012/02/24 19:29:37
    TheTruth1313
    +2
    Unfortunately, no, not really. But, either way, thank god, that as a result of the outcome of the war, slavery was abolished. No man should be the property of another.
  • Melizmatic TheTrut... 2012/02/24 19:39:38
    Melizmatic
    +2
    No 'person' should be the property of another.

    Other than phrasing, I completely agree.
  • TheTrut... Melizmatic 2012/02/25 05:45:43
    TheTruth1313
    Thanks for the reply. Sorry, PC is something that I will never be. However, I am very happy that we agree on this issue. Slavery is wrong any and every way you look at.
  • Melizmatic TheTrut... 2012/02/25 06:13:47
    Melizmatic
    +2
    I never asked for anyone to be 'pc', and yes; we agree.
  • TheTrut... Melizmatic 2012/02/25 06:16:03
    TheTruth1313
    :-)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/11/23 04:48:13

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals