In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
The c.ivil war was not about slavery
remingtonoaks
Member Posts: 26,245 ✭✭✭
I have been saying it all along, but most here thinks I'm full of poop. Here are 10 little known facts about C.ivil war that you must be made aware of
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ACGhgjLDf0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ACGhgjLDf0
Comments
States rights certainly played a huge part also.
HOWEVER, I don't personally think that the average white man from NY or Pennsylvania was willing to kill a Georgia or Carolina man over there love for Black freedom as much as a loyalty to the community and state that mustered them and such similarly that White Southerners who may have owned no slaves at all were all fired up about rich plantation owners having the right to enslave blacks as it was again about loyalty to their cause of states rights and independence.
Anymore so then I believe that the average German was about gassing Jews.
A perfect example being most of our Boys had no beef with the Vietnamese they went to fight because America told them too.
I have no knowledge of anyone in Afghanistan and or Iraq/Iran/Syria, I have nothing personally against any of these people. If we went to war with them and I were of age I would do what my Commanding officers told me to do.
Neither had slaves.
My wife's GG Grandfather served also, but died of influenza during the war. He did have slaves, but they were more like family and stayed his wife and family during and after the war. We know this because she has letters written by members of her family during and some years after.
It is my understanding that only 4 of the states that seceded actually mentioned slavery as a reason. But I am not certain of that.
And what were the tariffs on Northern ports for the same time frame?
And what goods were being taxed and at what rate?
It all happend a long time ago. What does it matter now?///
Well they are tearing down all the C.ivil War statues in the southern states because it was about slavery. So it does matter whether was over slavery or not, if it was not over slavery, then why are they taking down the Ci.vil statues in the southern states.
It doesn't matter to me at all whether they take them down or not, but I'm not the one that's crying about them getting rid of the statues of the southern states Hero's, I would be advocating that it was not over slavery but was over State rights if I cared whether or not they tore down the statues
So you can see that it does matter in today's time
DiLorenzo is a Professor of Economics at Loyola College in Maryland.
Sorry, if you are in love with Lincoln don't read it.
But he knows the economics of the pre-war South.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/thomas-dilorenzo/the-unconstitutional-tax-on-american-exports/
https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/was-civil-war-about-slavery
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE
A map of the US and its territories makes clear pro-slavery states would be on the losing end of the legislative battle. The long standing federal legislative "gag rule" agreement to not threaten slavery in existing states was rescinded, an indication that slavery within the states would at some point be at risk. President Jackson's opposition to South Carolina's 1836 courtship with secession (over tariffs) put the Executive Branch clearly on the side of prohibiting the act.
With an anticipated halt of slavery into new states and given our representative form of government the South would find itself routinely outvoted. Slavery in expansion states would be ended, continued slavery in existing states would be jeopardized.
It's easy to look at the election of 1860 and thereabouts, Lincoln as President, slavery in the states as the proximate causes. But that is a limited view and I think misses important factors contributing to the split.
Dennis Prager disagrees.
https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/was-civil-war-about-slavery
I have great respect for Dennis Prager and listened to his show for over 25 years. I wish we had more folks like him - as in several million more. I think our positions are very much the same. There is an interesting comment in the video posted attributed to Confederate Vice President Stephens.
Stephens stated plainly he considered "the Negro" to be intellectually and socially inferior, that they were incapable of functioning in White society and ought not participate in it. And of course he supported continuing the South's "peculiar institution".
The abolitionist movement was not monolithic. Many Abolitionists held nearly the same opinion as Stephens, with the exception of slavery of course. In modern day America we have an inclination to transpose our societal norms on to earlier generations. That Abolitionists were opposed to slavery doesn't mean they as a group supported full suffrage. In fact some who supported it were asked to tone down their position for fear of backlash. William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips and Congressman Stevens are prominent among them.
It's not too far off the mark to say that many Abolitionists held opinions closer to that of modern day segregationists than civil rights proponents. Although one supposes that given different times their positions would have similarly progressed.
The reasons the South seceded of course included taxes & slavery but that was not the stated reasons for the Northern aggression.