What was the cause of the American Civil War?

[Paragon]

Pre-secession -

• Missouri Compromise 1819 - purely about maintaining a balance in congress. Not about slavery, but because of slavery. Establishes that slavery is cool in the south. No one is actually concerned about slavery itself, they are concerned about industry north and farming south and who controls congress
• Tariff of 1928 - strictly meant to prop up northern industry but also caused southern agriculture to suffer because it relied on exports that were now being taxed as a result
• Nullification Crisis - 1830s - South Carolina vs the U.S. which created The Force Bill was a precursor to the State's Rights issue, by 1860 South Carolina was the only state to have a majority slave population
• Northerners want to secede - 1840s - many newspapers called for northern secession and some votes were actually taken
• Wilmot Proviso - 1846 - wanted to ban slavery in territories acquired after the Mexican-American war - the debates of such and votes in the House led to southern reps to realize the disparity between north industry and south agriculture is still a huge issue.
• Compromise of 1850 - admitted California as free, but enacted the law Fugitive Slave Act - this was the everyone agreeing that any slaves caught anywhere, free state or not, should be returned. Yep, those "free states" were really concerned with slavery
• Kansas-Nebraska act - 1854 - pissed off northerners who literally lost their Whigs causing northern states to consider seceding because slavery was above the imaginary line and nulled the Missouri Compromise. this also is the supposed start of the Republican Party. This is where bleeding Kansas comes from as abolitionist stirred up and killed, much like Antifa today
• Dred Scott - 1857 - The United States Supreme Court probably lights the match to the upcoming Civil War
• Abolitionist support violence against southern states and attack. - likes of John Brown
• Lincoln is elected - 1860 - Lincoln did not oppose slavery but being the new Republicans, he ran on the platform of no slavery in the territories or new states. This would upset the congressional balance between what is now urban vs rural.
• South Carolina secedes - 1860 right after Lincoln was elected. Having a population that was dominated by slaves, and with the previous history of US vs South Carolina - SC was the first of 7 states to create articles of secession based on how Lincoln was addressing things before he was even sworn in.
• I know in MS, but likely in most states the ordinance for vote of secession in the states' secession conventions did not mention slavery. On the other hand, the vote option to remain in the union was all about slavery. Go figure. In MS, they voted 80/20 for the secession
• Spring of 1861 - 7 states had voted for secession. South Carolina had Fort Sumter within it and considered when Lincoln sent supply ships to resupply, South Carolina took it as an act of aggression since they had seceded and Lincoln was resupplying the fort. Lincoln called for volunteers to join the northern army THE NEXT DAY to suppress South Carolina's "rebellion". This is part of why it's labeled the war of Northern Aggression . The other southern states refused to provide troops to Lincoln to fight South Carolina and they summarily seceded themselves

Fill in the blanks where you want. I hit the tops as I could remember

In most states, the "declarations of causes" were written weeks after the actual votes for secession. These declaration of causes are what everyone refers to as to slavery being the reason behind the votes

It's interesting that slave states Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia and New Jersey where slaves were legally held up until at least Lincoln's election would agree to invade other slave states for the purpose of ending slavery.

 

[Paragon]

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.

bunch of revisionist nonsense

 

[east_beast]

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.

Lincoln summed it up himself:

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

Lincoln didn't agree with slavery but he really wasn't a strong abolitionist. This modern narrative of him being hell-bent to destroy the institution of slavery and the Civil War being a crusade against slavery makes for a good story but it just isn't at all historically accurate.

Then again, the old southern narrative of slavery having absolutely nothing to do with the war and it simply being valiant southern patriots standing up against senseless northern aggression was also wildly historically inaccurate itself.

 

[Truckedup]

Looking back, the Negro problem today comes right from the slaves...

 

[Paragon]

During the administration of President Franklin Pierce, a pro-Southern Democrat, Southern expansionists called for acquiring Cuba as a slave state, but the outbreak of violence following the Kansas–Nebraska Act left the administration unsure of how to proceed. At the suggestion of Secretary of State William L. Marcy, American ministers in Europe—Pierre Soulé for Spain, James Buchanan for Great Britain, and John Y. Mason for France—met to discuss strategy related to an acquisition of Cuba. They met secretly at Ostend, Belgium, and drafted a dispatch at Aachen, Prussia. The document was sent to Washington in October 1854, outlining why a purchase of Cuba would be beneficial to each of the nations and declaring that the U.S. would be "justified in wresting" the island from Spanish hands if Spain refused to sell. To Marcy's chagrin, Soulé made no secret of the meetings, causing unwanted publicity in both Europe and the U.S. The administration was finally forced to publish the contents of the dispatch, which caused it irreparable damage.

The dispatch was published as demanded by the House of Representatives. Dubbed the "Ostend Manifesto", it was immediately denounced in both the Northern states and Europe. The Pierce administration suffered a significant setback, and the manifesto became a rallying cry for anti-slavery Northerners.

 

[alk1174]

I had no family that owned slaves they were too poor. Fact is most of the south was too poor to own slaves. But I did have family that fought and they were fighting for freedom and to maintain their way of life.

 

[Truckedup]

I know that to understand slavery can be difficult for us now....But the Europeans felt they had a god given right to take what they wanted ,kill anyone who stood in their way and had a clear conscience about enslaving others...
. The Spanish discovered the Indians made poor slaves. They constantly tried to run away or kill themselves. The Africans were easier to hold as slaves, sorta like chickens..
. All the info posed may be the truth but by 1850 any person defending the use of slaves was a scum bag...

 

[IH-SSII]

Lincoln summed it up himself:

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

Lincoln didn't agree with slavery but he really wasn't a strong abolitionist. This modern narrative of him being hell-bent to destroy the institution of slavery and the Civil War being a crusade against slavery makes for a good story but it just isn't at all historically accurate.

Then again, the old southern narrative of slavery having absolutely nothing to do with the war and it simply being valiant southern patriots standing up against senseless northern aggression was also wildly historically inaccurate itself.

Clearly he had the BEST interest in mind of the country as a whole. I was taught he abolished slavery primarily as a weapon of War against the South, to weaken it during and after the war, not necessarily as the right thing to do.

 

[Paragon]

Clearly he had the BEST interest in mind of the country as a whole. I was taught he abolished slavery primarily as a weapon of War against the South, to weaken it during and after the war, not necessarily as the right thing to do.

Well, Emancipation only applied to the “rebellious” states

 

[FJC11]

Northern agretion

Is that like aggression ? you'd be right though.

 

[det107]

Civil War was started because due to succession of the South, Prez Lincoln wanted to "preserve the Union."

It was a bloody war, brother against brother-

 

[gt1guy]

Ending slavery was a byproduct of the war, not the reason for it.

Lincoln knew slavery and the Declaration of Independence were at odds, but was more than willing to kick that can down the road. Just as the Founders did.

In his own words: From the Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858

LINCOLN: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

 

[Mikel]

The war started because of secession.
The South seceded to protect slavery.


In the late 19th century there was a massive revisionist campaign in the south to redraw the cause of the war away from slavery, because even they realized slavery was a very shitty reason for all that devastation.

People should look at contemporary documents, which make it exceedingly clear that it was about protecting slavery, which the South saw as being encroached upon by the Northern states and the federal government.

 

[SanDiegoCJ]

The war started because of secession.
The South seceded to protect slavery.


In the late 19th century there was a massive revisionist campaign in the south to redraw the cause of the war away from slavery, because even they realized slavery was a very shitty reason for all that devastation.

People should look at contemporary documents, which make it exceedingly clear that it was about protecting slavery, which the South saw as being encroached upon by the Northern states and the federal government.

Finally someone with brains. Mikel, IMO you have your head screwed on straight.

 

[Paragon]

The war started because of secession.
The South seceded to protect slavery.


In the late 19th century there was a massive revisionist campaign in the south to redraw the cause of the war away from slavery, because even they realized slavery was a very shitty reason for all that devastation.

People should look at contemporary documents, which make it exceedingly clear that it was about protecting slavery, which the South saw as being encroached upon by the Northern states and the federal government.

Nope

 

[IH-SSII]

Since we are talking about RIGHTS and the States, who do you think is going to end up on the losing end of this in California? Yea, I'm pretty certain "who" it WILL be. Also certain who will be getting even more preferential treatment. Yes, Democrats ARE so tolerant as we continue to see.

"The California legislature has now voted to strike these words from our state constitution:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”"

 

[Stuck]

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.

Yup it was all about States rights. The Southern states wanting the right to own slaves and the Union saying they dont have the right to own slaves.

 

[Paragon]

Yup it was all about States rights. The Southern states wanting the right to own slaves and the Union saying they dont have the right to own slaves.

Nope

Please provide where "the Union" articulated that there was no right to own slaves

Why were there slave states still in "the Union" and did not secede?

ever heard of Dred Scott?

 

[Truckedup]

An invasion by a foreign army is painted as infighting, and the rulers of the day painted forever as heroes in the history books. But remember, the conquistadors were bad when they did this exact same shit. And Lincoln gets a round of applause it

. Oh come one, most of the country was taken by force from the Indians...

 

[Truckedup]

And I will never deny that most of the land was taken by the spilling of blood. It’s a fact. Europeans came here and mopped the floor with most of the natives because of superior technology. It was bloody and violent, because that’s how everything was back then. But no one is painting Cortez or Custer as humanitarian heroes. Why does Lincoln get that treatment when he did the exact same thing?

Because Lincoln was the first Republican President? Lol.....Yup that's how it was back then...Men who wrote the most important document in the world had no problem with buying and selling humans like they were cattle...It was a war of hypocrites....The North eventually won because it had superior technology...And because of African slaves, the country now has a bunch of blacks expecting money for what happened hundreds of years ago...

 

[Paragon]

And the union had all the right in the world to decided that for states still in the union. The problem is that the southern states were not. They left. They took their ball and went home. They started their own country. The civil war was an invasion by a foreign power in order to exploit it for economic benefit. Its only called the civil war because that’s how the victors chose to paint it, them selves as heroes instead of conquerers. It’s like if vs came over here and tried to take us back over to pbb by force. If you want to bitch about revisionist history, that’s the number 1 place to start. An invasion by a foreign army is painted as infighting, and the rulers of the day painted forever as heroes in the history books. But remember, the conquistadors were bad when they did this exact same shit. And Lincoln gets a round of applause for it

This is equally nope

 

[montrose818]

Well, the side that was against slavery won, so we knew the shit today would come sooner or later.

/hood on

 

[crisbee1]

Lazy plantation owners caused the "American Civil War". Had Plantation owners been Mormon their kids would have picked all the cotton and we would now have racial equality. (cept for Messicans).

 

[evernoob]

I had a fantastic History teacher, two of them actually. This history was taught to me since Grade School, in the North:

1. Missouri Compromise: Maine gets let into the Union a Free State, if Missouri, north of Mason-Dixon, gets admitted as a Slave State. This maintained the balance of power in Congress, mostly the Senate.
2. 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act: sponsored by Illinois Senator Douglas, this would have repealed the Missouri Compromise and allowed Slaves in the Louisiana Territory. Northern Whites don't want this, because it'll make them as poor as the pathetic Southern non-slaveowning Whites.
3. Abraham Lincoln RETURNS to politics because of this, and gives these long, detailed speeches against Slavery. This makes Lincoln very popular, as the Kansas-Nebraska Act had reminded the North that Slaves existed in the US, and the South was about to grab more power.
4. Bleeding Kansas: Southern Slavers again trying to force slavery into the North, from 1854 until the end of the Civil War.
5. Lincoln becomes a Senator after speechifyin' against Douglas, then wins the Republican Nomination for President in 1861.
6. South vows to secede if Lincoln becomes President.
7. South secedes.
8. Gen. Beauregard cowardly attacks Maj. Anderson and his 54 men at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. Thank God Confederates are incompetent: no one is killed.
9. Confederates consider Yankees weaksauce.
10. "I say, I say, them Yankees is gonna fight!....."
11. Blood.....

This was taught to me in High School. So what caused the Civil War:

• Southern aggro about slavery
• Northern Whites don't want a spread of slavery, it will make them as poor as the truly pathetic Southern White non-slaveowners
• South cheats and makes Kansas-Nebraska act
• South cheats and starts civil insurrection in Kansas
• South wants to lower the cost of labor to Mexico levels with Slavery
• South DEMANDS that slavery be extended into new Northern territories, or else.
• Abraham Lincoln makes Abolition popular with an extremely good speechifyin' (this is historical, Lincoln was an incredibly engaging orator and writer)

Civil War was the South's fault. This is not history written by the winners, the South literally cheated the restrictions on slavery IT had agreed to, then sperged out when Lincoln said we wouldn't extend slavery.

The Civil War was cause by the South's cheating over slavery, trying to extends it. Lincoln literally just wanted to stop its spread.

Of course once ANYONE meets a Southern Plantation Owner, they instantly hate them. These motherfuckers are literally the most despicable human beings on Earth, they keep black slaves while white sharecroppers starve, and they are arrogant as fuck.

Southern Plantation Owners are the last vestige of Feudalism in America, and they had to be stomped out and exterminated. The Northern Industrialists, which made their bones by self-made work, of course hated the Primogeniture, inherited wealth of these Southern Fags and Dandies.

The above fact was NOT taught in my school, it's something I found out reading books. Southern Plantation Owners were Fags and Dandies and literally everyone hated them, even British Aristocracy, because Southerners fashioned themselves as Aristocrats even though they were ignorant tobacco-spitting rubes.

 

[evernoob]

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.

The South was adamant about EXTENDING slavery, into Kansas, and the northern Louisiana Territory.

This is not controversial, that happened:

Missouri Compromise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missou...uri_Compromise

Kansas-Nebraska Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas...93Nebraska_Act

Bleeding Kansas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

South was AGGRESSIVELY extending slavery AFTER they agreed not to, and they used violence to do it.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaa, booo hooo hooo Muh Sherman's March

Yeah what about that Kansas-Nebraska Act and Bleeding Kansas you terrorist cowards?

 

[evernoob]

What facts?

Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Louisiana Purchase, Bleeding Kansas, and Fort Sumter. Those facts.

 

[evernoob]

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"

It's literally the most important thing about America and the crux of EVERY discussion that is happening on GCC.

The Civil War ENDED European Feudalism and made the cost of American blue-collar labor HIGH. EVERYTHING about America that even Southerners love is based on this value of labor.

It is the difference between us and Shithole Mexico, and it's why every manual worker, like the entire population of IBB/GCC, should be against mass immigration and for the expulsion of the Illegal Invaders.

The Civil War is literally that. Southerners wanted to EXTEND slavery, and the reason Religious Abolitionists got so much traction is for 2 reasons, not really covered in Ken Burns documentaries:

1) Southern Terrorism in Bleeding Kansas. No. I mean Terrorism.
2) Northern farmers and laborers didn't want to compete with Black Slave labor, the South was an actual run-down shithole. A shithole.

 

[evernoob]

Lincoln summed it up himself:

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

Lincoln didn't agree with slavery but he really wasn't a strong abolitionist.

That is a lie. Yes, Lincoln said he would keep slavery IF...... . IF.... IF he had to do it to keep the Union.

Lincoln is absolutely a strong Abolitionist and returned to politics BECAUSE of slavery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraha..._Peoria_speech

Lincoln was compelled to argue his case against the Kansas-Nebraska Act in three public speeches during September and October 1854, all in direct response to Douglas.[SUP][2][/SUP] The most comprehensive address was given by Lincoln in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16.[SUP][3][/SUP] The three-hour speech,[SUP][2][/SUP] transcribed after the fact by Lincoln himself, presented thorough moral, legal, economic, and historical (citing the Founding Fathers)[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] arguments against slavery, and set the stage for Lincoln's political future.[SUP][2][/SUP]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_Peoria_speech

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_Peoria_speech

 

[SanDiegoCJ]

The whole idea that states have the right to secede is a complete fiction.


Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869.[SUP][1][/SUP] The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.

In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas had remained a United States state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[SUP][2][/SUP]

Therefore the claim that "the north" was a foreign invasion is also a complete fiction.

 

[evernoob]

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

That's exactly why the Documentary is still good. It's all weepy and emotional for Leftism, but it definitely precedes the pure Marxist bent of modern times. Also, McCullough's great voice and Patriotism lend some balance to it.

Now, Ken's brother Ric is a straight up anti-white, anti-Western Marxist, but his documentary Into the Deep is a must watch.