Has the civil war narrative shifted to being about Slavery in order to provide the North moral justification? Why did the North actually invade?

[Anonymous]

Anyone that’s actually read into the history of the war knows that the North committed numerous attrocities across the South. All of which are rarely mentioned or discussed in schools.

Anyways, the founding fathers did support the right of states to secede, even if it wasn’t a right formally guaranteed in the constitution, because after all that is how our country itself was formed.

But besides that, they make the war out to be all about slavery nowadays when in actuality, records kept at the time show that Union generals and even Lincoln himself had the express goal of “preserving the Union” in mind.

Lincoln himself even offered to establish protections for Slave states that remained a part of the Union, henceforth why the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 only applied to “states in rebellion” and exempted Kentucky and Missouri.

To them allowing the country to split apart would not only have been a political embarrassment but also a loss of a large federal tax base. Which is why Lincoln tried doing everything possible to hold the country together diplomatically, even if it meant going against his own personal views.

So for this reason alone they went to war even though they could’ve just avoided it all together.

Because if the concern really was about ending Slavery, then surely economic reprisals and exclusion from the world economy would have been enough to force the South to disband its practice within a few years.

So case be told while I may still be from the North, I’m beginning to recognize that the masses have effectively been brainwashed and the winning side has effectively rewritten history in order to cast itself more favorably.

So while its true that many of the Confederate generals owned slaves, so too did some Union Generals. So how could “ending slavery” have been the Union’s goal if slave owners themselves were put in charge of command?

Updates

+1 y

But besides that point the indisputable fact remains the same. That most of the South at the time did not own slaves.

So what more could it have been about than just defending themselves against an unprovoken invasion? Especially considering that people at that time were more “sectionalist” and felt more loyalty towards their region of the country and their state than the country itself.

Updates

+1 y

Not saying I agree with Slavery but my whole argument is that there were far more peaceful ways to end it, and that wasn’t what the Civil War was truly about either

[RolandCuthbert]

No, the Founding Fathers never supported a state had the right to cede.

You don't seem to have read anything on the views and beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Excluding "Black" and Indigenous folks, let's see what they actually talked about. Because they put their souls into this document called the Constitution. The point was to create a State based upon freedom for European men. You are correct in that they created what was a confederation of separate states. But those states were united under a strong central government. Hamilton insisted on a strong central government because that government had to step in when the "state" violated the rights and/or freedoms of American citizens.

The thing that pisses of "White" supremacists like you is that, those rights and freedoms got extended to non-"Whites", women, gay/lesbian, etc.

And you try to hide your nonsense under the argument by Jefferson about states' rights. No state has the right to cede. If that were the case that would have been defined in the Constitution. And this was told to you by Justice Anton Scalia of the Supreme Court. Just find the quote. And he also added, if there was any question if a state could cede, that was answered in the Civil War.

The Constitution is the law of the land. It covers the rights of the states and for purposes of arbitration, there is only one body that can resolve disputes. And that is the Supreme Court.

How Americans continue to let our children graduate high school. . without knowing what is written in the Constitutions is beyond me. Even if your argument is based upon the weird interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

[RolandCuthbert]

Now for this nonsense what Lincoln said. . ."preserving the Union".

Why does it matter if you think you can prove that Lincoln didn't care about the slaves? He freed them.

And when it comes to the South, we know why Southern Democrats tried to cede. They did not hint at it. They said it out loud. And funny thing is, they said they were going in the opposite direction of the Constitution. The thing is and I tell "Black" people this all the time. At least they are not like you. . .

disingenuous.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, 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 upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "

Alexander Stephens, Vice President Confederate States of America

[RolandCuthbert]

Nothing you post makes any rational sense. "Most Southerners did not own slaves."

Most Germans did not commit genocide against the Jews.

Most Japanese did not rape and kill Chinese and Koreans,

Most South Africans did not murder and take advantage of "Blacks" in their nation.

Germany is still responsible for the Holocaust.

Japan is still the responsible for the Rape of Nanking.

South Africa is still responsible for Apartheid in South Africa.

And the south is still responsible for the Confederate States of America. A racist theorcratic state that tried to cede from America.

That is just plain old objective fact.

[God_of_Thunder]

I'm not sure where you get this "unprovoked invasion" stuff from, considering the first shots of the Civil War were when the Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumpter.

Sure, the North eventually marched into the South, but the way you've worded it paints the Union as the aggressors, when in fact, that was not the case at all.

Furthermore, the central premise behind that war was, indeed, about slavery. You can broaden the cause of the conflict into the subject of state's rights, but those rights in question were the rights to keep, and expand, slavery.

The South wanted to expand slavery into the newly acquired territory gained by the Louisiana purchase, which the majority were against. Thus, the South decided to succeed, and form their own nation. Then they fired the first shots of the war.

The North wanted to preserve the Union, yes, and they initially wanted to prevent the spread of slavery, rather than abolish it, but the goals changed over the course of the war.

[Asker]

Not sure how Fort Sumter could be considered an invasion by the South. Considering it was Union troops that refused to leave a foreign occupied territory when asked

[God_of_Thunder]

I never said the South invaded Fort Sumpter. I said the Confederate troops "fired on" Fort Sumpter.

And I don't see exactly how it was a "foreign occupied territory," considering that it belonged to the United States government, up until the South broke away, and claimed it belonged to them.

They tried to steal it, and when the rightful owners refused to leave, the Confederate army attacked. So the South was still the aggressor, and attacked US government property when the rightful owners refused to hand it over.

[Asker]

I dont agree with that assessment. If the US has army bases in Germany and they want us to leave, we shouldn’t have to?

[God_of_Thunder]

You're trying to equate to completely different situations.

There's a slight difference between negotiating with a sovereign nation that already exists, in order to place a military base on their soil, and placing a military base on your own nation's soil, within your own country's borders.

They didn't build Fort Sumpter on Confederate soil. It had been standing on United States soil for about 30 years, before the civil war even started. Then the Confederates just said, "Oh yeah, we're leaving, and we're taking your shit with us."

Big difference between foreign soil, and United States soil. I find it hard to believe that you really think those scenarios are the same.

[God_of_Thunder]

*two* completely (stupid phone)

[Asker]

The land in which Fort Sumter occupied was officially part of the state of South Carolina, even if it was being used by federal troops

[Asker]

So the South didn’t seize anything from the North. They were simply just trying to retake something that belonged to them

[Anonymous]

Basically yeah but the north did not care about black slaves or the immorality of slavery only ending it for economic reasons and to ultimately stop the south from succeeding and setting up a rival state.

[Deathraider]

The war was about slavery. While the North didn’t initially intend to end slavery, there’s no doubt that the reason for the South succession is the fact that they felt their right to own slaves was under threat.

Even people from the South writing about their justification for leaving the war make it clear it was about slavery.

[Asker]

Agree. But my whole argument is that the North didn’t actually care about ending slavery

[loveslongnails]

You're a 21 yr old fool who's bought into a bunch of bullshit. Read this and see what the leadership of the South was really all about:
Cornerstone Speech

[Asker]

Did you not bother reading my post?

I wasn’t talking about why the South seceded but only why the North invaded.

[loveslongnails]

The South seceded first, and this statement: "But besides that point the indisputable fact remains the same. That most of the South at the time did not own slaves..." is total bullshit. The entire economy of the plantation South was dependent on slavery. Where are you getting your information from, Trump University? LOL

[Asker]

I can’t find a single source anywhere that suggests most Southerners owned slaves but if you can that’s fine I guess. You should have no problem showing me then

[slatyb]

The civil war was entirely about slavery. US politics were all about slavery starting with the Missouri Compromise, and then the Kansas-Nebraska act. The South seceded to avoid the inevitable abolition of slavery nationwide.

[Dargil]

Because Confederates fired on Fort Sumter. And slavery was the rationale.

[Asker]

They opened fire only after 30 days of federal troops refusing to leave

[TheBigWhistle]

Federal troops were not obligated to leave a federal fort within the United States because a bunch of local yahoos told them to, Honestly, how completely and utterly ignorant is that comment?

[Dargil]

@TheBigWhistle Why be inflammatory in a polite debate. You must be a democrat.

[Asker]

@dargil That’s why its a shame abortion didn’t affect him

[TheBigWhistle]

@Dargil It's never a polite debate with this white supremacist piece of trash. And yes, I am a Democrat. Thanks for the compliment. Though in all honesty, it's comical that a right winger would think that Democrats are really the ones that are rude. You guys make me laugh.

[TheBigWhistle]

It's always been about slavery and that's the same answer you got the last 5 times you tried to peddle this lame bullshit.

[Asker]

Surprised you haven’t been arrested yet

[Asker]

Like honestly, with the level of intelligence you have its about time you go to a mental institution

[TheBigWhistle]

Wow, a double comment 13 hours apart. I must be getting under your skin which is good. Why don't you head out to the curb. They'll be by soon to pick up the garbage.

[Asker]

Great idea! I’ll be sure to take you over there

[TheBigWhistle]

What the hell happened to you to turn out like this? I know your parents didn't love you but still to be like this, how bad does your life have to be to turn out like this? You gotta know at this point, you're just human garbage and I'm sure I'm hardly the first person to mention that to you.

[Asker]

You’re one of the few in the vocal minority of delusional people. I can tell your mom must’ve clearly dropped you on your head or smoked crack while pregnant because clearly your brain is much less functionable than the average person

[TheBigWhistle]

You're not getting any closer to an intelligent response but it's sure fun to watch you keep trying.

[Asker]

Cool. I don’t give a sht

[Juxtapose]

It was a lot about states rights versus the power of the feds.

That issue still has not been fully settled because look at how states are approving marijuana even though it is federally illegal.

[msc545]

Any atrocities committed by the North pale in comparison to the 200+ years of slavery, rape, and other crimes committed by the South, many of which still continue. You people brought it on yourselves.

[msc545]

This, by the way, is complete bullshit:

"Anyways, the founding fathers did support the right of states to secede, even if it wasn’t a right formally guaranteed in the constitution, because after all that is how our country itself was formed."

[Asker]

Two wrongs doesn’t make a right

[OddBeMe]

No it was always slavery. Missouri compromise about whether it’d be a slave state…which was the states rights the Confeds complained about.

[fireforeffect]

In reading your diatribe, I can clearly see that you have a very poor grasp of history.

[SmokinAces2000]

Where do you come up with this shit lmao

[noohair]

I do believe it started at Fort Sumpter.