• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the US Civil War about slavery?

Was the US Civil War about slavery?

  • Total voters
    84
Tigerace117 said:
The United States did. We are one of the few countries which actually had a large scale rebellion erupt at the mere rumor that it would be ended.
Click to expand...

The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. It was fought to end secession.
 
Cardinal said:
When a discussion is inspired by a stupid person's comment, it should not be surprising when that discussion gets stupid very, very quickly.

Trump could say that the American Revolution was fought to stop communism spreading in Southeast Asia, and the rest of America would debate the veracity of that claim for the next two months.

This is what it means for a nation to be held hostage by its insane, unqualified and idiotic leader.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
I'm waiting for someone to say that The Revolutionary War was fought to protect slaverym
Click to expand...

Trump woke up only a few hours ago, give him time. Then you will defend his statement.
 
apdst said:
The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. It was fought to end secession.
Click to expand...

The Confederates seceded in the first place in order to protect slavery.
 
apdst said:
I'm waiting for someone to say that The Revolutionary War was fought to protect slaverym
Click to expand...

The founders thought slavery would soon end on it's own volition ...and did not anticipate or foresee the invention of the cotton gin when they wrote the constitution.
 
Moot said:
The south were the aggressors and attacked Fort Sumter and confiscated Federal property first.

Sherman's 1864 letter appears to be pondering a surrender. What was your point in posting it, apdst?
Click to expand...

To desytroy the idiotic Idea that the Feds invaded the South to end slavery, moot
 
Moot said:
The costs were minimal compared to paying a wage.
Click to expand...

What? How exactly is maintaining the life of your slaves going to come at minimal cost?
 
Cardinal said:
When a discussion is inspired by a stupid person's comment, it should not be surprising when that discussion gets stupid very, very quickly.

Trump could say that the American Revolution was fought to stop communism spreading in Southeast Asia, and the rest of America would debate the veracity of that claim for the next two months.

This is what it means for a nation to be held hostage by its insane, unqualified and idiotic leader.
Click to expand...
Presuming you mean Trump's comments. This thread was not inspired by Trump, at least not directly. This thread was inspired by another DP person's comments in another thread, and I didn't want to derail that thread.

Though, to be fair, that thread could be traced back to Trump's recent comments.
 
radcen said:
Presuming you mean Trump's comments. This thread was not inspired by Trump, at least not directly. This thread was inspired by another DP person's comments in another thread, and I didn't want to derail that thread.

Though, to be fair, that thread could be traced back to Trump's recent comments.
Click to expand...

This thread wouldn't exist if the President hadn't first expressed puzzlement over the origins of the Civil War, puzzlement that has been straightened out for every other American student by the time they were in the sixth grade.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
This thread wouldn't exist if the President hadn't first expressed puzzlement over the origins of the Civil War, puzzlement which had been straightened out by every other American student by the time they were in the sixth grade.
Click to expand...
Probably not, at least not right now, but it is a question I have pondered at times. Usually when some other debate starts over slavery vs secession, etc.
 
lol....after watching this conversation go round and round, all I can say is, those who know, know, and those who don't have to deal with the fact that regardless of what they think, or the hairs they split, the civil war brought the south to heel, and slavery ended. All good. :)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Slavery and the ban on accepting (admitting?) more slave states into the union. It is a no brainer that by adding only free states it would enable them to "legally" amend the constitution to prohibit (ban) slavery.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. The point I was trying to make was that while there were multiple issues around the Civil War, most of them stemmed from the possible abolishment of slavery. Hence, the Civil War was mostly caused due to the issue of slavery.
 
OlNate said:
lol....after watching this conversation go round and round, all I can say is, those who know, know, and those who don't have to deal with the fact that regardless of what they think, or the hairs they split, the civil war brought the south to heel, and slavery ended. All good. :)
Click to expand...
And, of course, you are one of those *who know*, right? ;)
 
radcen said:
I voted 'no'. I don't see the CV being about slavery, per se. Slavery was a central aspect to everything economically and societal in the south, absolutely, but I think it was just a means to an end for most southern people. If their lifestyle and profits and such could have been maintained or increased without slavery they most likely would have done so. Maintaining other people, even minimally, is a pain in the butt. Still, economic realities of the era made slavery a profitable thing, hence why it was such an ingrained part of that era and society.
Click to expand...

What, really?!?!?

While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."
Click to expand...

Civil War Facts

So are you splitting hairs here? Slavery was the cause. It was the precipitating conflict. The federal government tried to reduce slavery, which prompted the south to war.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
What? How exactly is maintaining the life of your slaves going to come at minimal cost?
Click to expand...

The cost of maintaining slaves was constant and minimal. The owners provided a shack, a few cuts of cloth and left over food. Most slaves supplemented their diet with small gardens next to their shacks. Other than the sales purchase there was very minimal expense to owning slaves.
 
OlNate said:
lol....after watching this conversation go round and round, all I can say is, those who know, know, and those who don't have to deal with the fact that regardless of what they think, or the hairs they split, the civil war brought the south to heel, and slavery ended. All good. :)
Click to expand...

The Civil War didn't end slavery.
 
Moot said:
The cost of maintaining slaves was constant and minimal. The owners provided a shack, a few cuts of cloth and left over food. Most slaves supplemented their diet with small gardens next to their shacks. Other than the sales purchase there was very minimal expense to owning slaves.
Click to expand...
Cost was minimal, but it still required some effort. You didn't want them all to freeze to death in the winter, for example, so you had to protect your "investment". The land that they lived was taken out of crop production, as another example. Little things, but they add up, and I'd bet that most would not have bothered had a more profitable solution been available.
 
Absentglare said:
What, really?!?!?



Civil War Facts

So are you splitting hairs here? Slavery was the cause. It was the precipitating conflict. The federal government tried to reduce slavery, which prompted the south to war.
Click to expand...
Ok, you cited an author with his own opinion. Wonderful.

Are you saying that, had there been other realistic ways for southerners to maintain or improve their own lifestyles and/or profits that they still would have wanted slavery and fought to keep it?
 
radcen said:
Ok, you cited an author with his own opinion. Wonderful.

Are you saying that, had there been other realistic ways for southerners to maintain or improve their own lifestyles and/or profits that they still would have wanted slavery and fought to keep it?
Click to expand...

Slavery was tied to the southern political calculus
 
MrPeanut said:
I voted yes. There were other reasons, but the trunk of the issue was slavery. The loss of slavery posed a real threat to the south economically. They responded with secession, and the ball began rolling.
Click to expand...

So would not economic reasons be the main factor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom