Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > History > civil war history

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-22-2013, 02:53 AM   #21
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6561 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

The Civil war was no fought over slavery. Slavery was an issue, but not the main issue. (a VERY small percentage of Southerners owned slaves).

The main issue was the violation of States' rights. The North was among other things, imposing stiff taxes on the South and violating their rights. THAT was the reason that so many states left the Union.

In all honesty, it could have ended there. It didn't because a certain US President decided he wanted to "preserve the Union". He violated the Constitution numerous times, did things that the founders would have wanted him hung for, and helped pave the road to war.

__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 03:05 AM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,617
Liked 813 Times on 621 Posts
Likes Given: 125

Default

That's what they said. Ever since after the war was lost...
Utter revisionist rubbish that's literally almost as old as Reconstruction itself.

Oh, and go back and check your grammar school history my friend. If it wasn't written by Jim Crow it will lay out that the first seven states seceded, almost every one citing slavery as the main cause, created their own Confederate constitution, and took over Federal instalations before some Republican guy named Lincoln was even inaugurated. Whoops!

Then they started a shooting war the next month to seize beseiged Federal Fort Sumter. Whoops and whoops again!!

"States rats" indeed.

__________________

Last edited by HockaLouis; 05-22-2013 at 03:29 AM.
HockaLouis is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 04:16 AM   #23
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6561 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HockaLouis View Post
That's what they said. Ever since after the war was lost...
Utter revisionist rubbish that's literally almost as old as Reconstruction itself.

Oh, and go back and check your grammar school history my friend. If it wasn't written by Jim Crow it will lay out that the first seven states seceded, almost every one citing slavery as the main cause, created their own Confederate constitution, and took over Federal instalations before some Republican guy named Lincoln was even inaugurated. Whoops!

Then they started a shooting war the next month to seize beseiged Federal Fort Sumter. Whoops and whoops again!!

"States rats" indeed.
Go reread your history book.

The causes of the war were economic and political differences, Violations of state rights by the Federal government, heavy taxes and tariffs created by the North, and at the very bottom of this list, slavery.

Slavery was NOT the main issue of the war. Why would it be? the VAST majority of Southerners didn't have slaves. Do you really think they would fight an die by the thousands just so a few rich plantation owners could keep their free labor? Hell no. They fought for Southern independence from an overly oppressive Northern government.

"The war is being fought for Union, not slavery".
-Abraham Lincoln

"I'm fighting because you are down here".
-One poor, ragged Confederate soldier

As for states seceding before Lincoln was inaugurated, why would they wait? They already knew Lincoln was going to be the next President, so they left the Union.

BTW, the South didn't own any slave ships. Slaves were brought to the US by Dutch, English, Portuguese, and FEDERAL UNION ships. The North was actually making money off of the slave trade.
__________________

Last edited by texaswoodworker; 05-22-2013 at 04:24 AM.
texaswoodworker is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 05:15 AM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9203 Times on 5058 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Georgia and Mississippi specifically stated slavery, or, the freeing of slaves and confiscations of slaves, as examples of federal overreach. Mississippi also further clarified, pretty much equating it to a modern day economic sanction.

From the Mississippi articles of secession:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. "

The rest of the states who seceded cited simple federal overreach, and federal government basically not doing their job (to put it very simply), except for two.

Those two being Missouri and Kentucky. Their articles of secessions state that they wanted to secede because war was waged upon them against their will by the federal government. Basically, "I wanted no part of this mess, but you started it!!"

Oh, I wouldn't think of not citing a source...
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp

So... in my mind... 1 state using the freeing of slaves as an example of federal overreach, and another state actually pretty much citing slavery as nearly the sole purpose (sometimes I'm not so proud of my home state...), hardly makes the issue solely that of slavery.

Was it an issue, before, during, and after? Yep. Was it THE issue? In my home state of Mississippi, and even then, it was basically the fear of absolute financial ruin without slave labor. The rest wanted the states' rights that was promised to them.

__________________
trip286 is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 05:37 AM   #25
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6561 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Well said trip!

__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 05:57 AM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4790 Times on 2679 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

The argument over slavery was older than the Nation. Slaves were used in the North and South. Slaves built the docks and piers and streets of New York. To this day buried slaves are found beneath the streets of the "Big Apple".
The Hugh influx of cheap labor from Europe replaced slaves in the North East. The South needed slaves to work in the Sub Tropic conditions from the start. The Slave owners had a major investment in this labor. If you read the arguments in Congress leading up to the war it was clearly about keeping the slaves.
Northern interest feared the slaves would be used to compete in the Mid Western farm lands {Bleeding Kansas}. In the end "Poor" men died on both sides to protect the Northern and Southern Elite.

__________________
nitestalker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 06:20 AM   #27
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6561 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitestalker View Post
The argument over slavery was older than the Nation. Slaves were used in the North and South. Slaves built the docks and piers and streets of New York. To this day buried slaves are found beneath the streets of the "Big Apple".
The Hugh influx of cheap labor from Europe replaced slaves in the North East. The South needed slaves to work in the Sub Tropic conditions from the start. The Slave owners had a major investment in this labor. If you read the arguments in Congress leading up to the war it was clearly about keeping the slaves.
Northern interest feared the slaves would be used to compete in the Mid Western farm lands {Bleeding Kansas}. In the end "Poor" men died on both sides to protect the Northern and Southern Elite.
The war was NOT over slavery. Lincoln himself admitted that. Southerners fought because their home was being invaded by the North. Not because they wanted slaves.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 06:31 AM   #28
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
John_Deer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,810
Liked 1477 Times on 1003 Posts
Likes Given: 512

Default

Poor men seldom have issue to start a war. However, poor men do most of the fighting.

__________________

Nothing in the affairs of men is worthy of great anxiety - Plato

John_Deer is offline  
NC1760 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 11:49 AM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FrontierTCB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 617
Liked 216 Times on 143 Posts

Default

I simply cannot believe the notion that an average Southern dirt farmer that was just trying to feed his family would take up arms and fight so that wealthy plantation owners would be able to continue using slave labor.
Today's equivalent would be a kid signing up to fight in a war designed to benefit American oil investors, defense contractors, and further the careers of Rep. and Dem. politicians. CRAZY!..........oh wait a minute.

__________________
FrontierTCB is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 11:58 AM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,617
Liked 813 Times on 621 Posts
Likes Given: 125

Default

Nitestalker, luv ya man but I cite facts and hear your and others' feelings and unread opinions. No point in that.

The men who decided to start the civil war (like a former Sec'y of War named Jefferson Davis who had been shipping arms to Federal armories in the South for years for some unknown reason) did so literally before Lincoln even got to Washington. And so southern soldiers truly fought for whatever the plantation owners really wanted.

As for "war for oil" TCB needs to look at the cost of a barrel of sweet crude so he can scratch his head at his own illogical and indefensible Libertarian perspective...

__________________

Last edited by HockaLouis; 05-22-2013 at 12:02 PM.
HockaLouis is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
civil war musket. what is this? coquijohn Blackpowder & Musket 11 03-14-2013 02:05 PM
Civil War? Shield9MM Conspiracy 136 03-04-2013 02:33 PM
Civil Unrest - Civil War - All Over The World PanBaccha Conspiracy 2 08-23-2012 04:19 PM
civil war era ballistics. mountainman13 Blackpowder & Musket 3 04-23-2012 08:08 PM
Civil War Era Gun ID help hoosieratc Curio & Relic Discussion 4 12-29-2010 07:06 AM



Newest Threads