What's new
By:
Filters

What was the cause of the American Civil War?

If I recall correctly we had a pretty legit history teacher. He went into the federal overreach and fully explained that it wasn’t about slavery. He was a huge JFK conspiracy theorist, too.

What they didn’t teach us was that Abe Lincoln looked down up the blacks much like the southerners and he found them to also be inferior. Or that the Union soldiers basically enslaved them after they were captured/freed/however you want to word that.
 
It was about states rights, as in a state's right to allow slavery or not. To claim it wasn't about the slavery issue is pure revisionist history. The south was adamant in keeping the number of slave states and free states equal in number so they could block any anti-slavery legislation in the senate.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
It was about states rights, as in a state's right to allow slavery or not. To claim it wasn't about the slavery issue is pure revisionist history. The south was adamant in keeping the number of slave states and free states equal in number so they could block any anti-slavery legislation in the senate.
Click to expand...

Nope
 
hell i don't even remember what i was taught in school. grew up in CA so it wasn't a big deal. "some people did some things"
 
YotaAtieToo said:
I was taught it was basically all about slavery.

As an adult I learned it was more about taxation. I'd actually like to learn more
Click to expand...

Same here. I’ve always wanted to delve more into the Revolutionary and Civil Wars but always find myself drawn to WWI and WWII. When I was collecting WWII rifles that just cemented my interests. I can’t afford to collect rifles from the prior mentioned wars. Haha!
 
Paragon said:
Nope
Click to expand...

Another revisionist who ignores facts.


Slavery


The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union was the debate over the future of slavery. That dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution.

The agrarian South utilized slaves to tend its large plantations and perform other duties. On the eve of the Civil War, some 4 million Africans and their descendants toiled as slave laborers in the South. Slavery was interwoven into the Southern economy even though only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves. Slaves could be rented or traded or sold to pay debts. Ownership of more than a handful of slaves bestowed respect and contributed to social position, and slaves, as the property of individuals and businesses, represented the largest portion of the region’s personal and corporate wealth, as cotton and land prices declined and the price of slaves soared.

The states of the North, meanwhile, one by one had gradually abolished slavery. A steady flow of immigrants, especially from Ireland and Germany during the potato famine of the 1840s and 1850s, insured the North a ready pool of laborers, many of whom could be hired at low wages, diminishing the need to cling to the institution of slavery.
 
Last edited:
I was going to let this play out some so more actual history would be discussed, but to my point: Not a single southern state’s articles of secession say anything about war

all of this talk about MS flag puts me off on both sides because the stories are told as southern states “fought” for slavery
 
I grew up in the south and we were taught that it was all about states' rights and had virtually nothing to do with slavery. These days, it seems like kids are being taught that it was all about the virtuous crusade of Lincoln and the Union to free the slaves. The reality is somewhere in between. At the end of the day, there were a lot of societal and economic differences between the north and the south and it all came to a boiling head. Slavery was a huge part of it.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
Another revisionist who ignores facts.
Click to expand...

Because a lot of the southern states relied on slavery for agricultural needs, correct? As stated above I don’t know a lot about the Civil War and won’t claim to, so this is just me digging for information. :rolleyes:

I have a black friend who swears there were black sharecroppers who were wealthy and slave owners in the Carolinas. Finding truth on that is damn near impossible today.
 
Facts like northern states were the first to want to secede from the Union? Why did they want to secede pre-Lincoln?
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
Another revisionist who ignores facts.
Click to expand...



CA vs MS. I’m not surprised by the disagreement. There is always more to the story.

The south as a whole was treated as a second class nation for years. Slavery and it’s abolishment was the trigger of a festering problem.


FleshEater said:
Because a lot of the southern states relied on slavery for agricultural needs, correct? As stated above I don’t know a lot about the Civil War and won’t claim to, so this is just me digging for information. :rolleyes:

I have a black friend who swears there were black sharecroppers who were wealthy and slave owners in the Carolinas. Finding truth on that is damn near impossible today.
Click to expand...

there are a lot of stories like your friends’ that aren’t a part of the standard curriculum, but many are true. That is the revisionist history

The narrative would have you believe that every white person in the south was a whip slinging slaver and worth a fortune. Far from the truth. My family was here and dirt poor up until the 1950s.
 
Last edited:
Paragon said:
I was going to let this play out some so more actual history would be discussed, but to my point: Not a single southern state’s articles of secession say anything about war

all of this talk about MS flag puts me off on both sides because the stories are told as southern states “fought” for slavery
Click to expand...

Man, I feel like I vaguely remember about taxation or tariffs on trade and the south wanted freed from the feds butting in on that, but that the need to keep slaves was also a part of that. Is that somewhere close?

I really need to research this more. Do you have any suggested reading or truthful documentaries and dive into this?
 
FleshEater said:
Because a lot of the southern states relied on slavery for agricultural needs, correct? As stated above I don’t know a lot about the Civil War and won’t claim to, so this is just me digging for information. :rolleyes:

I have a black friend who swears there were black sharecroppers who were wealthy and slave owners in the Carolinas. Finding truth on that is damn near impossible today.
Click to expand...

It’s true. One side of my family comes from a mix-race (Scottish and American Indian) and they were part of a non-white group in the carolinas that lost all of their holdings prior to the civil war. Members of this group of blacks, Indians, etc lost their holdings “legally” but I’ve really never heard how/why. The civil war came quickly thereafter, s much of that historical detail is not readily available
 
Paragon said:
It’s true. One side of my family comes from a mix-race (Scottish and American Indian) and they were part of a non-white group in the carolinas that lost all of their holdings prior to the civil war. Members of this group of blacks, Indians, etc lost their holdings “legally” but I’ve really never heard how/why. The civil war came quickly thereafter, s much of that historical detail is not readily available
Click to expand...

Okay, so you and Dirt Roads said the same thing. My black friend grew up south of the Mason Dixon. I’ve been born and raised in Pennsylvania. None of this history has followed our families.

Is there anywhere to actually find truthful documentations on this stuff today? I’m guessing from books written over 30 years ago?
 
Separate pre-secession, Lincoln election, actual secession (and the timeline), and then what led up to those first shots.
 
First of all, it wasn’t really a Civil War by definition.

The.Confederate states seceded. We had our own government, with president, and currency.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
Another revisionist who ignores facts.


Slavery


The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union was the debate over the future of slavery. That dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution.

The agrarian South utilized slaves to tend its large plantations and perform other duties. On the eve of the Civil War, some 4 million Africans and their descendants toiled as slave laborers in the South. Slavery was interwoven into the Southern economy even though only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves. Slaves could be rented or traded or sold to pay debts. Ownership of more than a handful of slaves bestowed respect and contributed to social position, and slaves, as the property of individuals and businesses, represented the largest portion of the region’s personal and corporate wealth, as cotton and land prices declined and the price of slaves soared.

The states of the North, meanwhile, one by one had gradually abolished slavery. A steady flow of immigrants, especially from Ireland and Germany during the potato famine of the 1840s and 1850s, insured the North a ready pool of laborers, many of whom could be hired at low wages, diminishing the need to cling to the institution of slavery.
Click to expand...

Why is this a fact? Someone wrote it down. How do we know its not just some fabricated story? None of us were there.
 
Just started Ken Burns Civil War documentary. Only watched episode 1 so far.

he's a liberal dude but this was made a while ago before the hyperpolitics stage we are in now so I am hoping it is not slanted

interesting fact so far........the first fight was in a guys front yard. He moved to get his family away from the coming war and Lee surrendered in his kitchen to conclude the war years later
 
Paragon said:
Separate pre-secession, Lincoln election, actual secession (and the timeline), and then what led up to those first shots.
Click to expand...

I’ll look up some stuff. What’s so frustrating is that I read through something online, then read the comments. There are some serious historians when it cones to this war. Their comments seem more valuable than the articles I find. They say things I’ve never heard before.

I really don’t understand why the truths of the past get buried so deeply, other than to control people by emotionally manipulating them. Seems to work.
 
dntsdad said:
Just started Ken Burns Civil War documentary. Only watched episode 1 so far.

he's a liberal dude but this was made a while ago before the hyperpolitics stage we are in now so I am hoping it is not slanted

interesting fact so far........the first fight was in a guys front yard. He moved to get his family away from the coming war and Lee surrendered in his kitchen to conclude the war years later
Click to expand...

What are you watching that on?
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
Another revisionist who ignores facts.


Slavery


The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union was the debate over the future of slavery. That dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution.

The agrarian South utilized slaves to tend its large plantations and perform other duties. On the eve of the Civil War, some 4 million Africans and their descendants toiled as slave laborers in the South. Slavery was interwoven into the Southern economy even though only a relatively small portion of the population actually owned slaves. Slaves could be rented or traded or sold to pay debts. Ownership of more than a handful of slaves bestowed respect and contributed to social position, and slaves, as the property of individuals and businesses, represented the largest portion of the region’s personal and corporate wealth, as cotton and land prices declined and the price of slaves soared.

The states of the North, meanwhile, one by one had gradually abolished slavery. A steady flow of immigrants, especially from Ireland and Germany during the potato famine of the 1840s and 1850s, insured the North a ready pool of laborers, many of whom could be hired at low wages, diminishing the need to cling to the institution of slavery.
Click to expand...

See if you can have a critical thought for just one moment

why did those northern state want to secede before the southern ones did?
 
Paragon said:
I was going to let this play out some so more actual history would be discussed, but to my point: Not a single southern state’s articles of secession say anything about war

all of this talk about MS flag puts me off on both sides because the stories are told as southern states “fought” for slavery
Click to expand...

of course not, secession wasn't about starting a war, it was about establishing the confederacy as separate from the union.

how much of the civil war was fought on Union soil compared to Confederate soil? For the purpose of conversation, union military outposts and forts don't count as union soil

The Union took that as justification for war, and the shots fired escalated force
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
It was about states rights, as in a state's right to allow slavery or not. To claim it wasn't about the slavery issue is pure revisionist history. The south was adamant in keeping the number of slave states and free states equal in number so they could block any anti-slavery legislation in the senate.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is correct. I was not taught this in school but have learned it by reading history. It is also true that Lincoln gave very few fucks for the slaves.
 
Poriggity said:
Why is this a fact? Someone wrote it down. How do we know its not just some fabricated story? None of us were there.
Click to expand...

Because there's a whole lot of history that backs it up Scott. It's not fabricated like the revisionist nonsense is. There were tensions over the slavery issue and balancing the number of slave vs non-slave states for decades before the war. I'm done with this subject since it's obvious from what's been posted so far and what's been posted on PBB on this subject in the past most aren't interested in facts, just in slamming the north and the federal government of the time.
 
Last edited:
east_beast said:
I grew up in the south and we were taught that it was all about states' rights and had virtually nothing to do with slavery. These days, it seems like kids are being taught that it was all about the virtuous crusade of Lincoln and the Union to free the slaves. The reality is somewhere in between. At the end of the day, there were a lot of societal and economic differences between the north and the south and it all came to a boiling head. Slavery was a huge part of it.
Click to expand...

This is what I believe.

All mentions of the American Civil War while I was in school were that it was entirely about slavery. However, examining the facts does not support that doctrine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh