General Discussion

jwirr

(39,215 posts)

22. Of course it was. The only thing they say today is it was economic - of course - they were

Reply to whereisjustice (Original post)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 11:42 AM

Jul 2015

fighting to keep slavery (slaves were property). Any way they say it still ends up pointing to slavery.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

75 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Civil War Really Was About Slavery. Really. It Was. [View all] whereisjustice Jul 2015 OP

And the north promoted segregation, kept blacks from voting for nearly a century... 951-Riverside Jul 2015 #1

I think you missed the point Scootaloo Jul 2015 #4

That's pretty much a really poorly constructed straw man. Igel Jul 2015 #17

show where slavery was about to be defeated by Congress and Lincoln... whereisjustice Jul 2015 #19

Well, Northern Supreme Court justices did promote segregation Art_from_Ark Jul 2015 #6

K & R & bookmarked! SunSeeker Jul 2015 #2

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2015 #3

Yes, it was about money alright. cemaphonic Jul 2015 #16

Slaves and money is what it was about fasttense Jul 2015 #60

in "gone with the wind", rhett butler points out, before the war is declared, that all niyad Jul 2015 #23

Agreed floyd1 Jul 2015 #5

Thank you for all that work. Bookmarking. Yes, the Civil War was about slavery. merrily Jul 2015 #7

I've never talked to anyone or read about this, but I was annoyed at Shelby Foote's attitude in C Moon Jul 2015 #8

Read his books rtracey Jul 2015 #26

I was harsh, thanks. I reworded it. C Moon Jul 2015 #27

Frankly, there are about 400 million people out there with a large percentage jtuck004 Jul 2015 #9

They want to claim the Confederacy was about "Southern hospitality" too.... Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2015 #10

K&R flamingdem Jul 2015 #11

Thank you, whereisjustice, for all your work pulling this together. n/t pnwmom Jul 2015 #12

Every State had Cryptoad Jul 2015 #13

Were you taught in school Uncle Joe Jul 2015 #43

No,,, I was taught the lie that Cryptoad Jul 2015 #57

This message was self-deleted by its author Uncle Joe Jul 2015 #67

Here in Nashville, I was taught it was fought over slavery as that was the hottest Uncle Joe Jul 2015 #68

After i got old enough not to believe Cryptoad Jul 2015 #72

That makes it sound like the Southern and border states were arguing against state power Uncle Joe Jul 2015 #73

My understanding is Cryptoad Jul 2015 #74

I've always been struck by how slavery derailed Confederate foreign policy. cab67 Jul 2015 #14

excellent summary LittleGirl Jul 2015 #15

As a white southerner, I'm tired of hearing the excuses. Thank God we lost the wr 7962 Jul 2015 #18

Secession was definitely about slavery. The war that followed had more complex reasons behind it onenote Jul 2015 #20

The war was started because the North would not cooperate with the South regarding slavery whereisjustice Jul 2015 #24

k and r and bookmarking, and sharing, widely. niyad Jul 2015 #21

Of course it was. The only thing they say today is it was economic - of course - they were jwirr Jul 2015 #22

Besides the rich rtracey Jul 2015 #25

1.7 % of the pop.owned slaves maindawg Jul 2015 #29

yup rtracey Jul 2015 #31

Actually, a lot of the Confederate soldiers who didn't own slaves KitSileya Jul 2015 #66

What maindawg wrote kydo Jul 2015 #33

1.7%? Not even close to accurate ThoughtCriminal Jul 2015 #44

ok I checked it maindawg Jul 2015 #59

Still misleading ThoughtCriminal Jul 2015 #69

It was more than 1.7% in southern states gollygee Jul 2015 #46

Excellent OP! Spazito Jul 2015 #28

The case of North Carolina is interesting struggle4progress Jul 2015 #30

In between was Lincoln's monumental blunder Yupster Jul 2015 #55

Lincoln's call for militia troops, after the attack on Fort Sumner, was based on the Militia Act struggle4progress Jul 2015 #64

The secession of NC is noteworthy because a referendum had already decided decisively against it, struggle4progress Jul 2015 #65

Those claims are nothing more than neo-confederate dipshittery Major Nikon Jul 2015 #32

Would like to make a distinction here. Lithos Jul 2015 #34

They also fought for the right to be slave holders themselves, one day. From a 50,000 ft view whereisjustice Jul 2015 #36

Proof for that? Lithos Jul 2015 #39

It's not that complicated, either Major Nikon Jul 2015 #37

Conscription started 16 April, 1862 Lithos Jul 2015 #40

Which means the war began with an all-volunteer army Major Nikon Jul 2015 #41

No, not really Lithos Jul 2015 #48

"being paid a bonus" /= involuntary Major Nikon Jul 2015 #51

It makes them mercenary Lithos Jul 2015 #52

Which would make them even more traitorous Major Nikon Jul 2015 #53

"Average soldiers" ThoughtCriminal Jul 2015 #47

Those were the 1 year/90 day wonders Lithos Jul 2015 #49

88% of the slave owners didnot qualify for that exemption ThoughtCriminal Jul 2015 #56

It was about states rights psychmommy Jul 2015 #35

It was actually diametrically in opposition to states' rights Major Nikon Jul 2015 #38

Yes, and you can hear the echoes of that arg in the "freedom of religion" debate in which whereisjustice Jul 2015 #42

It's the same warped logic Major Nikon Jul 2015 #54

that tropical environment thing of the heaven05 Jul 2015 #63

ANY time that "states' rights" thing comes up - it's all about sanitizing racism. lee atwater calimary Jul 2015 #45

great point and most recently, the racism behind the campaign "protecting against voter fraud". whereisjustice Jul 2015 #50

Excellent post malaise Jul 2015 #58

"a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery" EndElectoral Jul 2015 #61

Excellent history & analysis. Huge K&R. nt appal_jack Jul 2015 #62

Great post, bookmarking, thank you. nt Zorra Jul 2015 #70

Pickett just wanted some Apples from NY One_Life_To_Give Jul 2015 #71

Pickett visited Lee after the war and was very bitter Yupster Jul 2015 #75