The Cross and the Confederate Flag

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I know homer but we have to satisfy Ben and get to 100 pages in this thread. It's dumb and getting dumber. Imagine what it will be when get to 100.

Are you aware we are having a great recruiting class in FB for 2015 and none have a CF T-shirt, don't know why the CW started and could not care less.

[AUUSN 823]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/j8im9j/wack-flag

[alexava 6,974]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

if you had to make a pie chart explaining the causes for the civil war, what proportion would you assign to slavery%?

Nice, 100 choices, and 100 people who will complain no matter what answer i give:) LOL

After my joke I'm going to go ahead and be a smart ass here.

% of the pie chart representing slavery as a reason for the Civil War. I'd put at about 10%.

% of the pie chart representing slavery as a reason for secession. I'd put at near 100%

Doubt many will read this but...

Let's look at the main causes for secession, the democratic majority in the south ruled as an aristocracy below the mason dixon line, their power and wealth was built on the backs of slaves. When Lincoln won the presidency despite having next to no support from any of the southern states it was a sign to those in power in the South that changes were coming. Namely in the form of new anti-slavery rules regarding territories entering statehood as well as the fact that the slave holding aristocracy had lost it's footing as the power source in America... Cotton was no longer king (to put it simply).

A republican making president was the reason for the secession to start. Or you could say they saw their power waning within the USA and so seceded to make a country where they could keep their power. Or you could say they were men who had attained their power by the means of slavery, and when they saw legal slavery in trouble they seceded. Most people's problems are with how this is worded, in reality these statements are all interchangeable. A republican being president, loss of power, loss of slaves (means of power) are all tied together for why states started to secede.

Now, to my point of the Civil War having little to do with slavery I'll start by asking a question. Did only those who had an interest in keeping slavery legal fight for the Confederacy?

If a vast minority of Confederate soldiers owned slaves, then how did a war take place that spanned multiple years? Answering that question leads you to the reasons that a Civil War happened, since if only that ruling aristocracy took the field of battle the "Civil War" would have lasted all of a day.

The reasons men fought for the south are numerous. Some believed the propaganda that was spread by the Democrats of their area, that the Union wanted to lay claim to owned livestock (yes it was put this way, the rich comparing losing their slaves to the poor losing their ox). Others believed strongly in their state, state pride at that time was akin to American pride most people felt after the 9/11 attacks ( I use 9/11 as an example because it is recent, and not in any way to qualify it the same as the attacks on Ft. Sumter.). Yet others were eager to be like their forefathers and be part of an army fighting to create a new nation.... and of course there were many who only fought because they were conscripted. The reasons above are the main talking points in debate for why there was a Civil War, and likely for why we have such a polarized response for the reasons of the war. Rich powerful men caused the war by seceding, poor men who mostly cared nothing about slavery are the reason the war was actually carried out.

I vastly shortened this, but I hit most points without going into any detail. I have multiple papers in use from UT/MTSU/ETSU where I cover this much more in depth, but this gives a gist:)

And... kudos to anyone who reads all that.

yes the poorest southerners fought a war for slavery while most couldn't afford to own them. Probably because of that southern pride they still show with this flag. Like the people who I know personally who live in trailers, collect disability, but have republican signs in their yard because they hate socialism against abortion and Homer sexuals taking over. The point is no matter which way you try to present it, slavery was the near 100% reason for conflict.

[AUUSN 823]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

if you had to make a pie chart explaining the causes for the civil war, what proportion would you assign to slavery%?

Nice, 100 choices, and 100 people who will complain no matter what answer i give:) LOL

After my joke I'm going to go ahead and be a smart ass here.

% of the pie chart representing slavery as a reason for the Civil War. I'd put at about 10%.

% of the pie chart representing slavery as a reason for secession. I'd put at near 100%

Doubt many will read this but...

Let's look at the main causes for secession, the democratic majority in the south ruled as an aristocracy below the mason dixon line, their power and wealth was built on the backs of slaves. When Lincoln won the presidency despite having next to no support from any of the southern states it was a sign to those in power in the South that changes were coming. Namely in the form of new anti-slavery rules regarding territories entering statehood as well as the fact that the slave holding aristocracy had lost it's footing as the power source in America... Cotton was no longer king (to put it simply).

A republican making president was the reason for the secession to start. Or you could say they saw their power waning within the USA and so seceded to make a country where they could keep their power. Or you could say they were men who had attained their power by the means of slavery, and when they saw legal slavery in trouble they seceded. Most people's problems are with how this is worded, in reality these statements are all interchangeable. A republican being president, loss of power, loss of slaves (means of power) are all tied together for why states started to secede.

Now, to my point of the Civil War having little to do with slavery I'll start by asking a question. Did only those who had an interest in keeping slavery legal fight for the Confederacy?

If a vast minority of Confederate soldiers owned slaves, then how did a war take place that spanned multiple years? Answering that question leads you to the reasons that a Civil War happened, since if only that ruling aristocracy took the field of battle the "Civil War" would have lasted all of a day.

The reasons men fought for the south are numerous. Some believed the propaganda that was spread by the Democrats of their area, that the Union wanted to lay claim to owned livestock (yes it was put this way, the rich comparing losing their slaves to the poor losing their ox). Others believed strongly in their state, state pride at that time was akin to American pride most people felt after the 9/11 attacks ( I use 9/11 as an example because it is recent, and not in any way to qualify it the same as the attacks on Ft. Sumter.). Yet others were eager to be like their forefathers and be part of an army fighting to create a new nation.... and of course there were many who only fought because they were conscripted. The reasons above are the main talking points in debate for why there was a Civil War, and likely for why we have such a polarized response for the reasons of the war. Rich powerful men caused the war by seceding, poor men who mostly cared nothing about slavery are the reason the war was actually carried out.

I vastly shortened this, but I hit most points without going into any detail. I have multiple papers in use from UT/MTSU/ETSU where I cover this much more in depth, but this gives a gist:)

And... kudos to anyone who reads all that.

yes the poorest southerners fought a war for slavery while most couldn't afford to own them. Probably because of that southern pride they still show with this flag. Like the people who I know personally who live in trailers, collect disability, but have republican signs in their yard because they hate socialism against abortion and Homer sexual staking over. The point is no matter which way you try to present it, slavery was the near 100% reason for conflict.

Homer sexual?

[AUDub 11,232]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/j8im9j/wack-flag

Epic.

I'm going to miss Jon Stewart.

[alexava 6,974]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

if you had to make a pie chart explaining the causes for the civil war, what proportion would you assign to slavery%?

Nice, 100 choices, and 100 people who will complain no matter what answer i give:) LOL

After my joke I'm going to go ahead and be a smart ass here.

% of the pie chart representing slavery as a reason for the Civil War. I'd put at about 10%.

% of the pie chart representing slavery as a reason for secession. I'd put at near 100%

Doubt many will read this but...

Let's look at the main causes for secession, the democratic majority in the south ruled as an aristocracy below the mason dixon line, their power and wealth was built on the backs of slaves. When Lincoln won the presidency despite having next to no support from any of the southern states it was a sign to those in power in the South that changes were coming. Namely in the form of new anti-slavery rules regarding territories entering statehood as well as the fact that the slave holding aristocracy had lost it's footing as the power source in America... Cotton was no longer king (to put it simply).

A republican making president was the reason for the secession to start. Or you could say they saw their power waning within the USA and so seceded to make a country where they could keep their power. Or you could say they were men who had attained their power by the means of slavery, and when they saw legal slavery in trouble they seceded. Most people's problems are with how this is worded, in reality these statements are all interchangeable. A republican being president, loss of power, loss of slaves (means of power) are all tied together for why states started to secede.

Now, to my point of the Civil War having little to do with slavery I'll start by asking a question. Did only those who had an interest in keeping slavery legal fight for the Confederacy?

If a vast minority of Confederate soldiers owned slaves, then how did a war take place that spanned multiple years? Answering that question leads you to the reasons that a Civil War happened, since if only that ruling aristocracy took the field of battle the "Civil War" would have lasted all of a day.

The reasons men fought for the south are numerous. Some believed the propaganda that was spread by the Democrats of their area, that the Union wanted to lay claim to owned livestock (yes it was put this way, the rich comparing losing their slaves to the poor losing their ox). Others believed strongly in their state, state pride at that time was akin to American pride most people felt after the 9/11 attacks ( I use 9/11 as an example because it is recent, and not in any way to qualify it the same as the attacks on Ft. Sumter.). Yet others were eager to be like their forefathers and be part of an army fighting to create a new nation.... and of course there were many who only fought because they were conscripted. The reasons above are the main talking points in debate for why there was a Civil War, and likely for why we have such a polarized response for the reasons of the war. Rich powerful men caused the war by seceding, poor men who mostly cared nothing about slavery are the reason the war was actually carried out.

I vastly shortened this, but I hit most points without going into any detail. I have multiple papers in use from UT/MTSU/ETSU where I cover this much more in depth, but this gives a gist:)

And... kudos to anyone who reads all that.

yes the poorest southerners fought a war for slavery while most couldn't afford to own them. Probably because of that southern pride they still show with this flag. Like the people who I know personally who live in trailers, collect disability, but have republican signs in their yard because they hate socialism against abortion and Homer sexual staking over. The point is no matter which way you try to present it, slavery was the near 100% reason for conflict.

Homer sexual? :Sing:/>

exactly

[homersapien 11,600]

Titan...you can through up all the links and facts you want to but there are others that refute you. Hers is one. Read what Pulitzer Prize winner James McPherson said on the question "what started the Civil War." As I said, believe what you want but you belitle yourself with the insults.

No, it doesn't. I read it in the course of gathering my material. It ignores facts. It shades others. The South seceded to preserve slavery first and foremost. Period.

I'm sorry you can't see this and care more for a piece of cloth than other people.

McPherson: I see a three-stage process in the origins of the Civil War. The first stage is a growing diversity between the economic and social systems of the North and the South. When the country was founded, all states had the institution of slavery and all were overwhelmingly rural and agricultural in character. But slavery was relatively marginal in the Northern states, and during and after the Revolution, they abolished it. Their economy began to develop in the direction of a more diversified, free-labor, commercial and industrial as well as agricultural economy, while the cotton boom in the South fastened slavery more firmly than ever on that section and kept the South overwhelmingly rural, overwhelmingly agricultural, and primarily dependent in its economy on slave-grown agricultural crops. The paths of development increasingly diverged over the first half of the nineteenth century and, in the process, generated increasingly polarized ideologies about what kind of society and what kind of nation the United States ought to be. And that focused on the institution of slavery, which by the 1830s was being increasingly attacked by the Northern abolitionists as contrary to the ideals of liberty that the country had been founded on, and as contrary to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence; while the South grew increasingly defensive and turned aggressive in its defensiveness, defending slavery as a positive good and as the basis for a far superior society to what they increasingly portrayed as a chaotic, disorganized, unjust, exploitative, free-labor society in the North.

*****

Historians look way more in depth on historical issues than just yelling "Slavery" and then moving on, that being said... I don't see how you figure McPherson didn't think slavery was a reason for the CW.

I thought that very odd also. I guess he forgot I quoted him extensively from earlier in the thread. One more time:

"This Mighty Scourge - Perspectives on the Civil War" by James M. McPherson

pp.3-12 (excerpts)

Jefferson Davis, a large slaveholder, justified secession in 1861 as an act of self-defence against the incoming Lincoln administration, whose announced policy of excluding slavery from the territories would make "property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless...thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars".

The new vice president of the Confederate States of America, Alexander H. Stephens, said in a speech at Savannah on March 21 1861, that slavery was "the immediate cause of the late rupture and the present revolution" of Southern independence. The old confederation known as the United States, said Stephens, had been founded on the false idea that all men are created equal. the Confederacy, in contrast, "is founded upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

After the war, however, Davis and Stephens changed their tune. By the time they wrote their histories of the Confederacy, slavery was gone with the wind - a dead and discredited institution. To concede that the Confederacy had broken up the United States and launched a war that killed 620,000 Americans in a vain attempt to keep 4 million people in slavery would not confer honor on their lost cause.

Over the years since the war, many Southern whites have preferred to cite Davis's and Stephens's post-1865 writings rather than their claims of 1861. When Ken and Ric Burns's popular PBS documentary on the Civil War was first broadcast in 1990, it provoked a hostile response from Southerners who did not like the portrayal of their Confederate ancestors as having fought for slavery. 'The cause of the war was secession" declared a spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, "and the cause of secession could have been any number of things. This overemphasis on the slavery issue really rankles us." Among the "any number of things" that caused secession, according to the descendent of a soldier who served in the 27th South Carolina infantry, were "states rights, agrarianism...., aristrocracy, and habits of mind including individualism, personalism toward God and man, provincialism and romanticism" - anything but slavery.

During the first half of the twentieth century the argument that slavery had little to do with the growing polarization between the North and South that led to secession found a great deal of support among professional historians. The "Progressive school" dominated American historiography from the 1910s to the 1940s. "Merely by the accidents of climate, soil, and geography," wrote Charles A. Beard, doyen of the Progressive school, "was it a sectional struggle" - the accidental fact that plantation agriculture was located in the South and industry mainly in the North. Nor was it a contest between slavery and freedom. Slavery just happened to be the labor system of plantation agriculture, as wage labor was the system of Northern industry. The *real* issues between the North and the South in antebellum politics were the tariff, government subsidies to transportation and manufacturing, public land sales, financial policies, and other types of economic questions on which industrial and planting interests had clashing viewpoints.

This interpretive analysis, so powerful during the second quarter of the twentieth century, proved a godsend to a generation of mostly Southern-born historians who seized upon is as proof that slavery had little to do with the origins of the Confederacy. The Nashville Fugitives, an influential group of historians, novelists, and poets who gathered at Vanderbilt University and published the famous manifesto "I'll Take My Stand" in 1930, set the tone for the new Southern interpretation of the Civil War's causes. It was a blend of the old Confederate apologia voiced by Jefferson Davis and the new Progressive synthesis created by Charles Beard.

An offshoot of this interpretation of the Civil War's causes dominated the work of academic historians during the 1940s. This offshoot came to be known as revisionism. Revisionism tended to portray Southern whites, even the fire-eaters, as victims reacting to Northern attacks; it truly was a "war of Northern aggression".

While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the states-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? States rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a priniciple. In the antebellum South, the purpose of asserting state sovereignty was to protect slavery from the potential hostility of a national majority against Southern interests - mainly slavery.

But even so, state sovereignty was a fallback position. A more powerful instrument to protect slavery was control of the national government. Until 1861 Southern politicians did this remarkably well. They used that control to defend slavery from all kinds of threats and perceived threats. They overrode the rights of Northern states that passed personal liberty laws to protect black people from kidnapping by agents who claimed them as fugitive slaves. During forty-nine of the seventy-two years from 1789 to 1861, the presidents of the United States were Southerners - all of them slaveholders. The only presidents to be reelected were slaveholders. Two-thirds of the Speakers of the House, chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee, and presidents pro temp of the Senate were Southerners. This domination constituted what antislavery Republicans called the Slave Power and sometimes, more darkly, the Slave Power Conspiracy.

Southern politicians did not use this national power to buttress state's rights; quite the contrary. In the 1830s Congress imposed a gag rule to stifle antislavery petitions from Northern states. The Post Office banned antislavery literature from the mail if it was sent to Southern states. In 1850 Southerners in Congress plus a handful of Northern allies enacted a Fugitive Slave Law that was the strongest manifestation of *national* power thus far in American history. In the name of protecting the rights of slaveholders, it extended the long arm of federal law, enforced by marshals and the army, into Northern states to recover escaped slaves and return them to their owners.

Senator Jefferson Davis, who later insisted the the Confederacy fought for the principle of state sovereignty, voted with enthusiasm for the Fugitive Slave Law. When Northern legislatures invoked *their* states rights against this federal law, the Supreme Court with its majority of Southern justices reaffirmed the supremacy of national law to protect slavery (Ableman vs. Booth, 1859). Many observers in the 1850s would have predicted that if a rebellion in the name of states rights were to erupt, it would be the North that would rebel.

The presidential election of 1860 changed that equation. Without a single electoral vote from the South, Lincoln won the presidency on a platform of restricting the future expansion of slavery.

Slaves were the principal form of wealth in the South - indeed in the nation as a whole. The market value of the four million slaves in 1860 was close to $3 billion - more than the value of land, of cotton, or of anything else in the slave states, and more than the amount of capital invested in manufacturing and railroads combined for the whole United States. Slave labor made it possible for the American South to grow three-quarters of the world's marketed cotton, which in turn constituted more than half of all American exports in the antebellum era. But slavery was much more than an ecomomic system. It was a means of maintaining racial control and white supremacy. But with 95 perent of the nation's black population living in the slave states, the region's scale of concern with this matter was so much greater as to create a radically different set of social priorities.

These priorities were bluntly expressed by the advocates of secession in the winter of 1860-61. That is the principal finding of one of the most important books on the secession movement to have appeared in recent years, "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles B. Dew. Growing up in the South of the 1940s and 1950s, Dew bought the state's-rights interpretation of Civil War causation lock, stock, and barrel. Ancestors on both sides of his family fought for the Confederacy. His much-beloved grandmother was a member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. In his dormitory room at a prep school in Virginia he proudly hung a Confederate flag. and he knew "that the South had seceded for one reason and one reason only: states rights.......Anyone who thought differently was either deranged or a Yankee.

Later, however, as a distinguished historian of the antebellum South and the Confederacy, Dew was "stunned" to discover that protection of slavery and white supremacy was the dominant theme in secession rhetoric. "Apostles of Disunion" is a study of the men appointed by seceding states as commissioners to visit other slave states to persuade them also to leave the Union and join together to form the Confederacy. "I found this in many ways a difficult and painful book to write," Dew acknowledges, but he nevertheless unflinchingly concludes that "to put it quite simply, slavery and race were absolutely critical elements in the coming of the war....Defenders of the Lost Cause need only read the speeches and letters of the secession commissioners to learn what was really driving the Deep South to the brink of war in 1860-61."

[homersapien 11,600]

AUUSN and I are classic examples. We sling insults at each other but I am 100% sure if we sat face to face over a beer and discussed our careers we see each other in a whole different light.

Don't bet on it. Do you not remember what you did? I wouldn't have a beer with the likes of you.

Me either. Even if he was buying.

('Course, presumably he wouldn't ask since I'm just a "worthless POS" .)

[homersapien 11,600]

Lol, now that was really hilarious. I really think PT has at the least one other personality he doesn't know about

Gee, I hadn't thought of that.

[homersapien 11,600]

Reading a recent Washington Post article I came across these comments and thought I'd share as a point of reference.

"As it is today, South Carolina's government was controlled by the wealthy. 75% of Southerners had no slaves.

President Lincoln trivia, he once wrote to Greeley:

"...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" http://memory.loc.go...mcc,nfor,aap...

President Lincoln's favorite 'plan' regarding 'what to do with the black slaves' was to send them to a new American colony in Central America, where he proposed they be put to work in the coal mines. After the first few months of the war, they started conscription (drafting) which could last 3 years.You either paid someone to go for you (substitute) or you enlisted and received the 'bounty' money, which was often 2 Years avg family income. Most Union troops fought for the same reason as Confederate troops, the 'up-front' bounty money to avoid being drafted, and to survive and return home to their families. Very, very few on either side cared 'for or against' slavery.

Today, slavery in America is illegal. The wealthy have responded by importing slave labor & exporting good paying jobs to slave wage nations. And, slavery pays, making the rich richer and greatly widening the income gap between the wealthy and the shrinking middle class.

The 75% of Southerners who were non-slave-owners were looted, burned out, raped, executed, and occupied by a brutal invading army. They fought. They had no choice. They fought for survival, not slavery. And they died by the hundreds of thousands. While the murder of nine people in a church in Charleston is tragic, it pales in comparison to the wanton rape and slaughter of innocents by the Union army, and is a poor excuse to besmirch the Confederate battle flag under which so many fought to protect their lives and families from a barbarically cruel invading force."

I'll say this....back during the slave trade my Irish ancestors would be passed over on the trading block for Africans because they could work the fields better. This is why so many Irish ended up in the Caribbean.

Lincoln didn't start the war over slavery. The South did.

[homersapien 11,600]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

Screw all the rednecks and historians and debates and study over what caused the war.

Just read the actual reasons given by the people who seceded then fired the first shots!

(Please excuse the shouting. I am getting frustrated by all this debate and analysis. It's not necessary. They told us why they did it.)

[homersapien 11,600]

alex....I would say at the BEGINNING of the war slavery was definitely a big issue but states rights was the primary one. But soon after the war started no doubt slavery became almost 100% of the reason. JMHO and a of others. But as Hillary would say, at this point what difference does it make?

States Rights for what purpose?

The Confederate states sure as hell weren't interested in states rights in the decades prior to the war. That's because they controlled the executive and judicial branches of the federal government and they actively suppressed states rights at the time in order to promote slavery.

"States rights" is a vacuous euphemism for protecting the institution of slavery. It's Orwellian in its evasion of the truth. Before and during the war, the Confederate states claimed it was to preserve slavery. Only after the war did "state rights" become the reason. Which is true enough only if you accept that the state right at issue was to preserve slavery.

[alexava 6,974]

Just imagine the discussions in 150 years from now on why this Iraq war was fought. It was just 13 years ago and i don't have a clue now.

[homersapien 11,600]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

if you had to make a pie chart explaining the causes for the civil war, what proportion would you assign to slavery%?

Nice, 100 choices, and 100 people who will complain no matter what answer i give:) LOL

After my joke I'm going to go ahead and be a smart ass here.

% of the pie chart representing slavery as a reason for the Civil War. I'd put at about 10%.

% of the pie chart representing slavery as a reason for secession. I'd put at near 100%

Doubt many will read this but...

Let's look at the main causes for secession, the democratic majority in the south ruled as an aristocracy below the mason dixon line, their power and wealth was built on the backs of slaves. When Lincoln won the presidency despite having next to no support from any of the southern states it was a sign to those in power in the South that changes were coming. Namely in the form of new anti-slavery rules regarding territories entering statehood as well as the fact that the slave holding aristocracy had lost it's footing as the power source in America... Cotton was no longer king (to put it simply).

A republican making president was the reason for the secession to start. Or you could say they saw their power waning within the USA and so seceded to make a country where they could keep their power. Or you could say they were men who had attained their power by the means of slavery, and when they saw legal slavery in trouble they seceded. Most people's problems are with how this is worded, in reality these statements are all interchangeable. A republican being president, loss of power, loss of slaves (means of power) are all tied together for why states started to secede.

Now, to my point of the Civil War having little to do with slavery I'll start by asking a question. Did only those who had an interest in keeping slavery legal fight for the Confederacy?

If a vast minority of Confederate soldiers owned slaves, then how did a war take place that spanned multiple years? Answering that question leads you to the reasons that a Civil War happened, since if only that ruling aristocracy took the field of battle the "Civil War" would have lasted all of a day.

The reasons men fought for the south are numerous. Some believed the propaganda that was spread by the Democrats of their area, that the Union wanted to lay claim to owned livestock (yes it was put this way, the rich comparing losing their slaves to the poor losing their ox). Others believed strongly in their state, state pride at that time was akin to American pride most people felt after the 9/11 attacks ( I use 9/11 as an example because it is recent, and not in any way to qualify it the same as the attacks on Ft. Sumter.). Yet others were eager to be like their forefathers and be part of an army fighting to create a new nation.... and of course there were many who only fought because they were conscripted. The reasons above are the main talking points in debate for why there was a Civil War, and likely for why we have such a polarized response for the reasons of the war. Rich powerful men caused the war by seceding, poor men who mostly cared nothing about slavery are the reason the war was actually carried out.

I vastly shortened this, but I hit most points without going into any detail. I have multiple papers in use from UT/MTSU/ETSU where I cover this much more in depth, but this gives a gist:)

And... kudos to anyone who reads all that.

yes the poorest southerners fought a war for slavery while most couldn't afford to own them. Probably because of that southern pride they still show with this flag. Like the people who I know personally who live in trailers, collect disability, but have republican signs in their yard because they hate socialism against abortion and Homer sexuals taking over. The point is no matter which way you try to present it, slavery was the near 100% reason for conflict.

Well serves 'em right. If they had been industrious enough to accumulate 20 slaves they would have been exempt from serving.

[AUDub 11,232]

Screw all the rednecks and historians and debates and study over what caused the war.

Just read the actual reasons given by the people who seceded then fired the first shots!

(Please excuse the shouting. I am getting frustrated by all this debate and analysis. It's not necessary. They told us why they did it.)

Keep beating them over the head with your cyber stick. It will sink in eventually.

[homersapien 11,600]

Screw all the rednecks and historians and debates and study over what caused the war.

Just read the actual reasons given by the people who seceded then fired the first shots!

(Please excuse the shouting. I am getting frustrated by all this debate and analysis. It's not necessary. They told us why they did it.)

Keep beating them over the head with your cyber stick. It will sink in eventually.

Me and AUTU I guess.

[AUUSN 823]

Haley and Sharpton hug. The CONservatives already think she is a dirty brown third worlder. Now they'll really shun her.

[TitanTiger 20,568]

alex....I would say at the BEGINNING of the war slavery was definitely a big issue but states rights was the primary one. But soon after the war started no doubt slavery became almost 100% of the reason. JMHO and a of others. But as Hillary would say, at this point what difference does it make?

Yes. And the overwhelming, as in - 2nd place almost got lapped, #1 "states' right" was slavery. Slavery, slavery, slavery. Oh, and then more slavery. Slavery for the CSA, slavery for future territories and states, slavery for lands they wanted to conquer in the Caribbean and Mexico.

Like Ben said, arguing "states' rights" as if it's something distinct from slavery is just silly. It was about slavery. Even when they said states' rights, it was about slavery. Period. They've told us in their own words what mattered most to them.

Believe them.

[Mims44 1,912]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

Screw all the rednecks and historians and debates and study over what caused the war.

Just read the actual reasons given by the people who seceded then fired the first shots!

(Please excuse the shouting. I am getting frustrated by all this debate and analysis. It's not necessary. They told us why they did it.)

I'm not sure if your just trolling now or what....

but it makes me sad.

[AUDub 11,232]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

Screw all the rednecks and historians and debates and study over what caused the war.

Just read the actual reasons given by the people who seceded then fired the first shots!

(Please excuse the shouting. I am getting frustrated by all this debate and analysis. It's not necessary. They told us why they did it.)

I'm not sure if your just trolling now or what....

but it makes me sad.

I don't know how many different ways you can parse it, man. They straight up told us why they did it. The contemporaneous sources on the matter reflect that. The "real" reason they seceded was that they wanted to continue and expand the practice of slavery.

[quietfan 233]

http://thedailyshow....8im9j/wack-flag

Epic.

I'm going to miss Jon Stewart.

Thanks, AUUSN! And you're not the only one, Bens!

[Mims44 1,912]

Yeah, I read it. Not trying to flame the fire again. I just read it as saying there were interlinking reasons, slavery just being one of them.

It seems unionism, economics and slavery all played a part depending on whose opinion you choose.

This kind of hits the point I've made... and the problem I had with homers post some... 40+ pages ago.

Some derp screaming that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War is not the same as an educated person looking at all the underlying issues that led to the Civil War. You would have to be willfully ignorant to say slavery was not the driving issue. But to say slavery was the only issue is also inaccurate.

There is a difference between some dumb redneck screaming about the Civil War and it's "real" causes, and a group of people discussing in depth reasons for secession IE: social/politicial/economic changes between the North and South.... And I think, that at least a little bit that has been the problem with this thread.

Screw all the rednecks and historians and debates and study over what caused the war.

Just read the actual reasons given by the people who seceded then fired the first shots!

(Please excuse the shouting. I am getting frustrated by all this debate and analysis. It's not necessary. They told us why they did it.)

I'm not sure if your just trolling now or what....

but it makes me sad.

I don't know how many different ways you can parse it, man. They straight up told us why they did it. The contemporaneous sources on the matter reflect that. The "real" reason they seceded was that they wanted to continue and expand the practice of slavery.

That wasn't my point at all, but you show what I was complaining about with your post.

It seems we hardly ever get past the surface in any threads, even the 50+ page ones. Can't have a discussion about this because we stay stuck on slavery/not slavery. Can't do it on global warming cause we get stuck on it exists/doesn't exist. Can't do it on Islam, we get stuck on kill them all/don't kill them all.

No one will be able to find a respected historian that says "Slavery was not a reason for the Civil War.", yet we will spend over 50 pages on it, and actively refuse talking about any related topics deeper in thought than slavery/not slavery.

[WarTim 3,457]

Political correctness makes me want to puke. We are becoming a country full of knee jerk crybaby bums.....and that is just the central leaning lefties. :dunno:/>

I'm no fan of PC either, but this is simply being human enough to actually care about other people.

I have already stated my opinion that the flag should go. Folks need to man up a deal with real issues instead of "feel good politics"...

[TitanTiger 20,568]

Political correctness makes me want to puke. We are becoming a country full of knee jerk crybaby bums.....and that is just the central leaning lefties. :dunno:/>

I'm no fan of PC either, but this is simply being human enough to actually care about other people.

I have already stated my opinion that the flag should go. Folks need to man up a deal with real issues instead of "feel good politics"...

So you think it's PC "feel good politics" but also that it should be? They are being knee jerk crybabies but we should indulge them anyway and remove it?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ben....we are up to 56. No problem getting to 100. I will just keep telling Titan the war began about states rights and that should do it.