PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   History Debates
     The Cause of the Civil War

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Was Slavery the Cause of the Civil War? 

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/civil_war_cause.HTM

(Edited by admin 10/8/2002 at 7:01 PM).
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 1:12 PM on May 1, 2002 | IP
Xenjael

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no it was not the cause...although the slave owners and southerners used it as an excuse... the real reason was of states rights rights, unfortunantel they lost and with that lost all pretences of that are that our government wrsened and grew colder and more secluded
---
had it of been for the cause of slavery, the north would have released the slaves earlier and had let them join the military and have an army, or regiment to their at the start of the war
 


Posts: 83 | Posted: 9:04 PM on August 31, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Slavery was an issue, but it was a much smaller issue then it is made out to be today.  The main issue were the rise of the republican party, the adoption of kansas and nebraska into the union, the unjust taxes that were directed at the south, states rights and slavery.  Keep in mind, where was the main slave trading post in america?  Boston.  Who did americans buy these slaves from?  African tribes who captured their own people and sold them off.  What is the difference in owning a slave for 3 weeks in boston to sell him compared to owning one for three years?


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 04:03 AM on September 8, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All these things were slave related. The Kansas-Nebraska act was so controversial because it repealed the Missouri Compromise and threatened to upset the balance of slave states to free state. Most of the taxes were directed on imports to protect industry, threatening the souther agricultural economy that was Slave based. And finally, the actual slave trade was abolished well before the civil war, so no slaves were coming in to Boston at that time. By the time of the civil war, it was illegal to import new slaves from abroad (you had to get them in the US)


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:09 AM on September 8, 2002 | IP
Xenjael

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yes... that is also true dsadevil, but most of the farming was done in the north by a lot more, the south was not worthless, but did not have an economic impact on the north when they lost as much help as they had that helped them produce so much
 


Posts: 83 | Posted: 2:44 PM on September 8, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes.  It was the north attacking slave owners because they though slavery was wrong.  It is!


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 4:38 PM on September 25, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Slavery is wrong but you honestly think that was the sole reason?  When did Lincoln free the slaves?


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 6:36 PM on September 25, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

It was the cause.  The north wanted no slaves.  So they attacked toset  the salves free.  It doesnt matter the time they were set free.  No segregation!


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 10:14 AM on September 26, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Slavery caused the Civil War. When the war began in 1861, neither the north or the south entered the conflict with any intention or desire to change the status of black americans. White Southerners would wage war to make the Confederacy a seperate and independent nation free to promote slavery. White Northerners took up arms to maintain the Union (which was Lincoln's only intention, not the freeing of slaves), but not to free a single slave.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:25 PM on September 26, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Agreed.  I guess we think alike.  Slavery was an evil, so licoln wanted chagen.  Also why he was assassinated.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 3:04 PM on September 26, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The slaves weren't freed in the union until the emanciaption proclamation, and that was written and year into the civil war.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 4:03 PM on September 26, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And lincolns reason for freeing the slaves was not to free the black man, it was to gain labor in northern iron factories and farms.  He thought that if he freed the slaves they would all leave the south.  When he did free the slaves and still do this day, the majority of blacks, excluding major cities, live still in the rural south.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 4:15 PM on September 26, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh...i did not know that.  But what if licoln's idea of setting free the slaves made the war?  He would have to war with the south to make them set free the slaves.  Thus, slavery created the war.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 4:19 PM on September 26, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is a northern bias, a southern bias and now a canadian bias.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 3:19 PM on September 28, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If the war was about States Rights, and the Southern "Cause" was to defend these rights, then why didn't States Rights disappear at the end of the war when the South was defeated? The only thing that disappeared was slavery. States Rights was, and is, dear to all states - North or South. That's why Texas is free to execute convicted murders, and Illinois free to put a moratorium on this practice. Slavery is, and was not, acceptable to the majority of U.S. citizens in 1861. The South used States Rights as a Constitutional tool to avoid doing away with slavery. Folks didn't sit around in 1860 saying that States Rights was an evil institution and should be outlawed. They said that slavery was evil and should be outlawed. That was the issue!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:35 PM on October 8, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When the civil war started slavery was still legal.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 7:02 PM on October 8, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The reason was slavery.  States rights is just the excuse for allowing slavery in the south.  The reason the North wasn't able to outlaw slavery at the start of the war was the threat of the border states leaving the union.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:31 AM on October 17, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No...states rights where lost after the civil war and american government focused on federal instaed of state policies...that is why federal laws take priority over state laws and states can only make certain laws...lincoln only freed the slaves to help northern industry. The war was not about slavery due to the fact that 2 union states owned slaves until the emancipation proclamation. The south seceeded and about one year later the civil war started bc union troops would not vacate fort sumpter which lied in confederate territory...seceeding from the union was totally legal until after the civil war bc the states joined the union volunteerily and were allowed to leave volunterrily as stated in the articles of confederation and the constitution has no precedent for states to seceed or not therefore making it totally legal. Lincoln eroded the constitution and forever after we can look forward to the fderal govnment taking a bite out of our liberties every year with the 500 laws past annually by federal agencies. Slavery was wrong but two wrongs dont make a right, to take the rights of everyone away togive to few is not a popular idea. Abraham lincoln was assasinated by a northerner bc he had plans to not only free the slaves but to also send them back to africa which would have hurt the northern intentions of using very very cheap black labor to run factories and farms. The northerners did not want the blacks to live up north and take there jobs for less money, but the factory owners and political elite wanted the blacks for cheap labor. Not even one percent of the rebel soldiers owned slaves and the average southerner disliked slavery due to the fact that there where no jobs for whites bc slaves did all the commercial farm work which was the majority of all the work in the agrarian culture of the south..blacks where given no rights up north and the peolple of the north obviosly would not die for a person that they did not wont around...be real. Slavery was a state right but it was one of the many rights disputed by the north and south. Tarrifs where are larger concern to slave owners bc they knew if the slavers where free they could just employ them for the same amount of money that they would have spent on clothes food and living quarters anyhow bc back then there was no minimum wage to determne how much to pay people. ....someone said that most blacks live in the rural south thats not true they live in the cities of the south like atlanta not in the country side.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:12 AM on October 17, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the illuminati started it, duh![b]
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:32 PM on October 31, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As a student of history I feel that Lincoln probably would have opted for the status quo if South Carolina hadn't seceded from the union. When that happened Lincoln, who I believe was an ardent supporter of the constitution, had no choice but to politicize the slavery issue to keep the United States together and insure that the constitution would be safe and The United States would survive. A clear example of the federal government taking precedence over state rights.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:44 PM on November 11, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Slavery was not the cause of slavery, the cause of slavery were states' rights. Southern states felt that they were being pushed by the North and this became a issue.The North used slavery as an excuse of war, to make the North look as if they were fighting for a moral cause. They weren't.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:04 AM on December 2, 2002 | IP
GrantLee

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What caused the Civil War?  The war was caused not by the existence of slavery.  The war was caused by a failure, on both sides, to face the problem and deal with it in a responsible manner.  Whereas the racial issue should have been viewed as an evolutionary phenomenon (at least in hindsight), it was viewed instead as a sort of permanent fixture.  The pathological ingredients are worth much study (and the reason it continues to fascinate, in my opinion).  The North wanted nothing to do with it in spite of its reality -- leaving the South in the peculiar position of having to find some rationale for its justification.  But what is consistent North and South is an effort to dance around the moral issue.  The abolitionists who screamed "Immediate emancipation" were as morally irresponsible as you can get.  4 million people, whose ancestors came from africa in a degraded condition and who now know only the conditions of slavery -- cannot suddenly understand and live as free productive citizens.  The slaveholders just mirror them that the condition of the slave is permanent and simply a part of nature, etc.  Perhaps the best way to get at the crux of this is to ask -- how could war have been avoided?  It could have been avoided by a moral superiority that no general population ever has.  This would have consisted of the South swallowing a great deal of pride (not in their nature in the first place) and admitting they had a problem and needed help.  Likewise, the North would have had to have admitted that it had fostered and enjoyed slavery and was willing to share the guilty problem.  The North could have welcomed migration of the blacks into the North where opportunities for them existed instead of passing laws to keep them out.  The South could have agreed to a repeal of the fugitive slave law and looked for Northerners who could have compensated them for slaves -- thus delivering them into freedom that included actual opportunity.  I'm not saying that slavery should have ever existed, and why it did, I don't know, I can't explain.  It had always been there.  I'm talking specifically about the event of the Civil War.  When the South said, then or now, that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War, they are lying.  When the North said, then or now, that they had nothing to do with slavery, they are lying.  The North is lying when it claims to have a moral superiority.  The South is lying when it claims innocence.  The common pattern is denial.  My point is this:  The race issue is at the heart of the conflict, and neither side is able or willing to deal with it in an honest way.  The moral issue is skirted when we argue about whether slavery should have existed or not.  The moral test was in dealing with it as a problem that needed a solution.  The insurmountable problem was that human realities were at odds with ideals about freedom.    


-------
GrantLee
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 12:19 AM on December 12, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I hope you realize that your name is an oymoron.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 01:10 AM on December 12, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i agree that the Civil War could have been avoided had the South swallowed their pride and the North admitted its wrongdoings of allowing slavery for so many years. but quite frankly, this would have been impossible. the plantation owners never would have willingly given up their slaves because they were so dependent on them. the North could deal with no slaves because it had moved from an agrarian society to a manufacturing one, once the Industrial Revolution spread to America. this is one reason why the south was hit so hard after the civil war ended. not to mention the fact that the Radical Republicans in the north did not give the south any breaks at all during the reconstruction period. lincoln had actually planned a more generous policy of reconstructing the south, but when he was assassinated, this plan went up in smokes


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 5:32 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the reason why it is so hard to determine the true cause of civil war is very simple:
when the armies for the north and south were formed, very few soldiers would have declared that the reason why they joined the army was to fight for or against slavery.
at the same token, had there been no slavery there would have been no war. or if there had been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 7:16 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in the end, the reason why the South separated from the Union was because they felt that their way of life and culture was being threatened by the North. which means slavery was the underlining cause because it was such a large part of southern culture.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 7:22 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't know southern culture was based around slavery.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 8:03 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in some states such as south carolina, there were more slaves than free men


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 8:18 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i realize that most southerners did not own slaves, but those who did usually owned hundreds of them


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 8:18 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i want to know what madbilly and tsmith think about how i explained the cause of the civil war...since i am an idiot and everything


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 8:25 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
GrantLee

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

one point i wanted to make is that to say that the existence of slavery was the "cause" is not specific enough -- since it had been in america long before the constitution or the state governments.  it existed under protection of the government until the 1860s.  what was it about the 1860s?

that's when all these pathological issues exploded.  the two sections were interacting more and more, while they had two different type societies that were naturally antagonistic to each other.  the war doesn't look to be something that anyone or any one group could have stopped.  looks to me like forces beyond anyone's control were at work.

i don't know if "pathological" is exactly the right word, but it's probably close enough.  these are some i've pondered:

situation looks like two halves of one brain.  at the start they are divided.  ironically, the war itself is what seals their fate that they can never exist separately.

weird relationship:  one party says i want a divorce and the other says, no you can't have one.

the psychology of the conflict seems to be the North as irresponsible antagonizer and the South as arrogant and defiant.  (i mean as the dynamic that ignited it)

by the time of lincoln's election, so much hostility had been generated that a fight was inevitable.  had the South not seceded -- then the fight would have been along some other line.  there could have been general anarchy throughout the country.  actually, i tend to think that the way it happened was the best possible way it could have -- given all human realities concerned.  the saddest thing is that it lasted 4 years instead of, say 1 or 2.  neither side ever gave up.  the South simply fought itself out.  there was a point where the Southerners could stomach no more and began to accept it as an inevitability.  i'm not sure about how much fact is available to support it, but my sense is that the south was never truly unified in a belief about a southern republic.  their actions were the reactions to a threat.  not specifically or even necessarily that someone was threatening to take their slaves away, but that someone was working to destroy them in any way they could.

oh well.  more later.  that's enough for now.



-------
GrantLee
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 9:23 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have never made the claim that the slavery wasn't part of the cause because it was.

The causes of the civil war in order

-States rights
-Slavery
-Economic differences
-cultural differences


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 9:31 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sure slavery had existed since the colonial era, but it wasnt until the 19th century that the North had begun to abolish slavery. by the time the civil war broke out, all of the North had abolished slavery and the South still had it.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 9:42 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
GrantLee

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yes, the north got rid of slavery by selling slavery southward.  


-------
GrantLee
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:11 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
GrantLee

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

let me try to clarify the first point i wanted to make.  we need to define the word, "cause."  we take it for granted we know what it means but we rarely do.  if the cause is the issue over which the conflict raged, then it is the slavery/race issue.  if by cause you mean the motivations of the participants -- then it gets complicated.

my own answer to that seemingly simple question is that the shallowness of politics could not effectively deal with a serious moral issue.  they just didn't care about the slaves outside of "property."  slave liberation was a war act.  morally speaking, they should never have been made a subject of warfare.  we're all still paying for this.  it's an evil thing that emancipation, done the way it was done, renders the black population of today in some sort of strange denial of their own history.  it's such a simple-minded statement that "slavery should never have existed."  i wish they could proudly embrace their history and celebrate the fact that they have come so far WITHOUT anybody's help.  they've made a phenomenal accomplishment.  why be ashamed of their own history to the point of wanting to erase it?  in my judgment, if the race issue ever disappears from politics, it will be because intelligent leaders recognize this underlying truth.








-------
GrantLee
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:34 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have noticed that generally, people on the right say that slavery didn't contribute as much as we think and people on the left say it did. Just an interesting observation (not of this board, of people in real life).
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 1:42 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thats because most people on the right believe that our country would be better off with slavery (or at least segregation)


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 9:41 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you think most right wingers are racisit?


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 12:41 AM on December 16, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

alot of them are. look at what happened to Trent Lott just this last week


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:47 AM on December 16, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually I can agree with you on that.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 10:53 PM on December 16, 2002 | IP
Bograt

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey, I admit it. I lean (a lot) to the right and I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally!


-------
Damn you Murphy!
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 9:37 PM on December 17, 2002 | IP
llad12

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The cause of the American Civil War is a well documented fact.  There is little doubt that the major and underlying issue of the war was the institution of slavery as it then existed.  The Southern states had many grievances at this time.  With the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision and the abrogating of the Missouri compromise, the expansion of the western territory and the question of whether or not these areas would be ultimately slave or free states were of utmost importance for the southern cause.  The South had other reasons including laws passed by northern states that conflicted with the Supreme Court’s decisions and effectively nullified the return of their “property” (i.e., slaves).  The election of the Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, was the catalyst for succession from the Union.  The Republican platform, to which Lincoln adhered to. included not admitting any of the western territories as slave states.  These were in direct conflict with the then existing Constitution of the United States and the Supreme Court’s decisions.  To the Southern states, the admittance of new free states to the Union would cause an imbalance politically.  Such a situation was intolerable for the protection of the institution of slavery and the billions of dollars invested thereto.

The importance of tariffs is somewhat ambiguous. The import tariff on most manufactured goods in 1860 was 8%, which hardly seems onerous enough to spark rebellion and war.


There is no ambiguity in the words of the leaders, however, who chose secession. Every state that issued a Declaration of Reasons chose to highlight slavery as the cause of their actions. Georgia's Declaration is typical: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." Texas' Declaration is even more explicit: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." You can read these Declarations, unedited, at: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html.


It is true that in the beginning of the war, the major reason for the North’s entry into the war was the preservation of the Union.  Lincoln had no desire to outlaw slavery as it existed in the South…his only cause was to limit its expansion.


After the battle of Antietam in 1862, however, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln wisely knew that in making slavery an issue of the war that the European countries would be hesitant to recognize and support the Confederacy.

Wars are complex.  For individuals, there were many reasons to choose which side to be on.  There is, however, little doubt that the under the political reality of the time, the institution of slavery was the primary motivating factor for the succession and ultimate cause of the war.  If there had been no “slave or free” states, in most likelihood there would have been no war. To ascribe or elevate this conflict for any other reason is a perversion of historical fact.



-------
R. K. Baker
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 1:28 PM on December 18, 2002 | IP
GrantLee

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

slavery was the underlying issue.  my point  was that the war came about as a result of reactions to the issue.  slavery existed before the colonies.  they did not suddenly wake up in 1860 and say, "my god; we have slavery."  to understand the civil war is to understand how it was that at that particular time it could plunge the country into war.  theoretically speaking, war could have been avoided had the country been able or willing to view the issue as an evolutionary one, but this was the failure.  the political gains or losses were too vital as they looked at it as a present, static reality.  there was a fleeting moment when they might have examined slavery and admitted it was not for the future but that to render 4 million people homeless was not a humanitarian answer.  at that moment, steps might have been taken that accomplished much less painfully what was accomplished with extraordinary pain.  but that would have been too much to expect; i say that regretfully, but i think it's true.  both sides ran from the issue as though in terror -- the north by dissociating themselves from it, and the south by trying to justify it.  we inherit something from that that continues to this day.  all the way to this trent lott thing concerning segregation, which was the natural result of the form of emancipation that occurred.  my point again:  why argue about whether something which should not have been WAS?  why not address it instead?  ever since the civil war, when the racial issue is raised, you will observe people rushing to dissociate themselves from it or rationalizing about it -- while working hard to brand someone else a racist.  it's really disappointing to observe this in 2002.  if people in general were students of history, we would have put this problem behind us long ago.  but no.  and why?  it's useful in politics -- that's why.

the freed slaves of the 1860s were not capable of the realities and the ramifications of citizenship.  so they drifted back into what was for all practical purposes, slavery.  no one with any power or wisdom cared about this.  what is so remarkable and encouraging is that the blacks have themselves to thank that they are on equal terms with everyone else in every walk of life.  someone might argue with me that they are not, but it seems to me that they are.  i don't personally grapple with race issues.  it saddens me that the conventional wisdom is that since slavery should never have existed -- this leaves the blacks without a history.  this is how they became americans -- why should it be shameful?  

i could go on and on about that, but this trent lott thing is weird for this reason:  there is no segregation in this country, there is no desire for it, it would be impossible to implement if there were a desire, it would be to no one's benefit if segregation were somehow implemented.  it is an unimaginable thought.  irregardless of what anyone says, segregation is impossible.  what shocks me is how the democrats are trying to raise a political storm on the basis of an imaginary mason/dixon line!  now, when you've had so many years of north/south migration and interaction -- this is truly desperate!

also, it's very shitty.






-------
GrantLee
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 9:35 PM on December 19, 2002 | IP
Nova

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. i am very right, but not racist(atleast in the sense that y'all are talking about everyone is a little racist.), my little brother is black we adopoted him, and i love him. There should be no segregation.

2. Slavery was not the cause of the civil war. The North was more racist than the south. The southerners, contrary to common belief did not all beat and kill their slaves, they were worth lots of money, actually more than any other single thing in the nation at the time. Lincoln made slavery the point of the war so that the United kingdom could not come in and break the northern blockade.

3. The north wished to destroy the southern way of life. After the north one the war they riged elections all across the south. For the first time blacks were in higher government. but not fromt he north they were "voted" in from the south. The north by passed one of the fundamental basis of our nation to get what they want. They supressed the vote of the southern people. And once the Republicans had something else they wanted to deal with they dropped the racial issue, and all the african americans kicked out of office.

4. Of course the industrial revolution that was a whole stinking lot better than slavery. B.S. Young children working in factories because their families live in a gehetto in the cities and can't afford to eat. Their fathers get paid nothing and are always at work the family structure falls apart. Yeah great woopy the north won the war so that they could allow for Progress to happen. Yeah Right!  


-------
One God; One Truth; One Way
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:35 AM on December 25, 2002 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just one little note:

There were only 300,000 slave holders in the South at the time of the War for Southern Independence (WSI). That is almost 6% of the population (not 10%). And more than that, only 150,000 (nearly 3%) owned more than 5 slaves! And some of y'all want to say that slavery caused the WSI??? It could not have been slavery that caused the WSI, for even the Union used slavery all through that War!


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 12:42 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

War for Southern Independence? why not just call it "the second american revolution." People fight for principles, even if they themselves are not directly affected by them.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:36 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think any of you would ever be completely right unless you actually were living in the time.

So Lott is a racist? What about clansman Byrd? I never hear anyone mention him. I don't think his voting record is so great on civil rights, yet he is president pro tempore or the senate and said a certain "n" word on FOX News Sunday a few years ago. Why wasn't his resignation called for more widely?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 8:42 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OMG, OMG, OMG!!!! i think i agree with broker for the first time in my life!!!! seriously, although i think slavery was probably the underlining cause, broker is right when he says that nobody would be completely right unless they were actually living in the time.

robert byrd? well, i dont know enough about him to make a judgement. but if what you say is true, then i would not want him to be the president pro tempore of the senate


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 9:36 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
Patriotandproudofit

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dsadevil,

"why not just call it 'the second american revolution.'"?

Because the "american revolution" was not a revolution at all. It was a War for Independence, and it included all of the American colonies. The WSI, on the other hand, was between two countries composed of parts of those original colonies, therefore it was not an American War for Independence, but the War for Southern Independence.


-------
Are you a man of the times, or a man for the times?
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 01:44 AM on December 31, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you are exactly right. the definition of "revolution" is an event that dramatically changes lifestyle. for example, the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 09:39 AM on December 31, 2002 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.