Slavery and Civil war.

[Reformed]

True enough, but the North could have let the Southern States secede without going to war. So that brings the Northern motivation back to preserving the Union.

No doubt. There were many catalysts that lead to the War. In the same vein the Southern states could have capitulated on the expansion of slavery and there would have been no war, so it goes both ways.

Eventually, conflict was unavoidable. I do think that slavery resulted in God's judgment on the United States and that judgment was the Civil War. I posted this portion of Lincoln's second inaugural speech in a previous thread. I am posting in again because it fits here:

"Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"

The line, "the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil" was Lincoln making the assertion that the War was God's judgment.


Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Rob_BW]

The conflict was unavoidable as early as the Mexican American War.

 

[Rob_BW]

True enough, but the North could have let the Southern States secede without going to war. So that brings the Northern motivation back to preserving the Union.

Sure. But how would that make it not about slavery?

 

[MartyF]

US History 101

It seems like a lot of people missed taking Politics 101.

 

[Reynolds]

Primary sources in a vacuum can be.

 

[MartyF]

Sure. But how would that make it not about slavery?

The motivation for the southern states to break from the union was to keep slavery.

Although there was some motivation in the North to fight a war over slavery and it provided moral motives for many of the troops and officers, the initial primary motivation to fight the war from the Northern perspective was to maintain the Union.

It became clear, as time went on, that the only way to maintain the Union was to abolish slavery.

 

[Reynolds]

Secession was about slavery. No secession, no war. It's that simple.

Secession was about states rights.
The Morrill Tarrif being the prime factor at that time. The North was forcing the South to sell them our agricultural output and forcing us to buy their products instead of the European products.

 

[rlvaughn]

Sure. But how would that make it not about slavery?

That I did not say. The entire affair was complex and complicated. There is no one word answer to what the war between the USA and CSA was about or not about.

 

[Rob_BW]

If slavery had been outlawed in English common law and never practiced by the Settlers, would there have been a Civil War?

That I did not say. The entire affair was complex and complicated. There is no one word answer to what the war between the USA and CSA was about or not about.

Well, maybe there is, and maybe there isn't. I'm reading about the English Civil Wars now. And the motivations behind the individual participants are a varied as anything. Yet the fight between King and Parliament can easily be distilled to a conflict of royal power against the people. Whether it was financial, religious, & etc.

Secession was about states rights.
The Morrill Tarrif being the prime factor at that time. The North was forcing the South to sell them our agricultural output and forcing us to buy their products instead of the European products.

Lol, weird, you must have edited your post after I had the page open. Bunch of extra words popped up when I quoted it.

The Morrill Tariff would not have sparked a war. It hit some states harder than others, and Virginia was even in favor of such tariffs.

 

[robycop3]

Secession was about slavery. No secession, no war. It's that simple.

Actually, slavery was only part of the reasons for secession, as the South considered it to be among "sacred" states' rights.. The Southern resentment against Federal tariffs still simmered since the time of Andy Jackson, 30 years earlier. And neither the South nor Jackson said a word about slavery then.

Some Southerners believed their state could function on its own, without a Northern-based federal govt. They forgot that they were as an arm that believes it could function without the rest of the body. They forgot their very-active trade with the North for manufactured goods, and for a common defense against foreign enemies.

Remember, both the British & French secretly considered the prospect of conquering the USA while it was weakened & divided by the war. However, upon seeing the powerful armies of both sides & believing a foreign invasion would bring them together quickly, they soon abandoned such thoughts & turned their attention to selling stuff to both sides.

 

[Reynolds]

Sure. But how would that make it not about slavery?

The war did not become about slavery until after the battle of Antietam.
If you care to research the event, you will see that this indeed proved that the war up to that point had not been about slavery. Lincoln almost lost his army. He had to conscript his soldiers who had fulfilled or were near finishing their terms of enlistment. The battle cry among the Union troops became "We are not fighting to free niggers."
Southern morale was equally crushed. The saying within the ranks became "rich mans war but poor mans fight.".
Neither side was fighting for or against aboliton prior to Antietam.
Lincoln actually told Davis that if he would come back into the Union prior to Jan. 1, 1863, then he would not abolish slavery.

 

[Reynolds]

If slavery had been outlawed in English common law and never practiced by the Settlers, would there have been a Civil War?

Well, maybe there is, and maybe there isn't. I'm reading about the English Civil Wars now. And the motivations behind the individual participants are a varied as anything. Yet the fight between King and Parliament can easily be distilled to a conflict of royal power against the people. Whether it was financial, religious, & etc.

Lol, weird, you must have edited your post after I had the page open. Bunch of extra words popped up when I quoted it.

The Morrill Tariff would not have sparked a war. It hit some states harder than others, and Virginia was even in favor of such tariffs.

Look at the lines of how it was voted in the House. Virginia was on the fence anyway. It was thought she would not secede.

 

[rlvaughn]

If slavery had been outlawed in English common law and never practiced by the Settlers, would there have been a Civil War?

An unanswerable fantastical question. If our history hadn't been our history, what would our history be?

Well, maybe there is, and maybe there isn't. I'm reading about the English Civil Wars now. And the motivations behind the individual participants are a varied as anything. Yet the fight between King and Parliament can easily be distilled to a conflict of royal power against the people. Whether it was financial, religious, & etc.

Well, we ain't England!

If you are satisfied to distill the cause of the American Civil War down to one reason, I am satisfied we will have to agree to disagree. I don't have the time or energy to continue in a discussion that ultimately probably won't lead to anyone's edification. I may not agree with all of Reynolds's points or reasons for making this post; however, I think we have descended into a state in our society in which it is incorrectly popular to claim that the war between the USA and CSA was only about slavery. That is not true. That is the only reason I unwisely entered this discussion. Now I will bow out.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What's this supposed to prove?

Lol... exactly.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

An unanswerable fantastical question. If our history hadn't been our history, what would our history be?
Well, we ain't England!

If you are satisfied to distill the cause of the American Civil War down to one reason, I am satisfied we will have to agree to disagree. I don't have the time or energy to continue in a discussion that ultimately probably won't lead to anyone's edification. I may not agree with all of Reynolds's points or reasons for making this post; however, I think we have descended into a state in our society in which it is incorrectly popular to claim that the war between the USA and CSA was only about slavery. That is not true. That is the only reason I unwisely entered this discussion. Now I will bow out.

Not willing to rage at the dying of the light I see.​

 

[rlvaughn]

The ‘IGNORE’ Feature on BB is Fantastic!

 

[Rob_BW]

An unanswerable fantastical question. If our history hadn't been our history, what would our history be?
Well, we ain't England!

If you are satisfied to distill the cause of the American Civil War down to one reason, I am satisfied we will have to agree to disagree. I don't have the time or energy to continue in a discussion that ultimately probably won't lead to anyone's edification. I may not agree with all of Reynolds's points or reasons for making this post; however, I think we have descended into a state in our society in which it is incorrectly popular to claim that the war between the USA and CSA was only about slavery. That is not true. That is the only reason I unwisely entered this discussion. Now I will bow out.

Brother, I know discussing this topic isn't likely to change any opinions. I rarely enter the fray on this topic online.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes ​

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Brother, I know discussing this topic isn't likely to change any opinions. I rarely enter the fray on this topic online.

So why did you now?

 

[Van]

Yet another thread filled with the same old falsehoods, denying slavery was the root cause of the civil war. The same deflection can be seen today, abortion is not about murdering babies, it is about women's reproductive rights. Twaddle. Evil-doers make dupes of many with their self justification fabrications.

Here is the bitter truth many are unwilling to swallow: The South was on the wrong side of history, and our struggle for human rights continues to this day. What did they hear being sung at Gettysburg? As Christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free...