Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: C19fan
The American Civil War, like all wars, was complicated. So were the men who fought it. But it’s not so complicated that we can’t see it for what it was—a war over slavery. We dishonor the memory of all who died if we lie about what the Confederacy was or about the evils of slavery. The best way to honor the past is to learn from it.

Concluding paragraph.

This is true, but not so in the sense in which the author intends it.

To be very particular, the war was about who was going to make the decision to end slavery and when: the southern States where slavery was practiced; or, the national government of the United States.

I don't believe slavery would have existed much longer: Brazil abolished slavery in 1888. The Europeans would have discovered that cotton could be grown more cheaply in India and elsewhere and the market for slave produced agricultural products would have inevitably declined, and the moral and political pressure in the South to end the practice would have become overwhelming.

10 posted on 05/01/2017 8:11:15 AM PDT by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: pierrem15

Eli Whitney and John Deere freed the slaves.


13 posted on 05/01/2017 8:18:25 AM PDT by SanchoP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: pierrem15
“[But it’s not so complicated that we can’t see it for what it was—a war over slavery.] This is true, but not so in the sense in which the author intends it.

To be very particular, the war was about who was going to make the decision to end slavery and when: the southern States where slavery was practiced; or, the national government of the United States.”
Worth repeating.
15 posted on 05/01/2017 8:20:51 AM PDT by rpierce (We have taglines now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: pierrem15

“But it’s not so complicated that we can’t see it for what it was—a war over slavery.”

Let me ask the question this way: If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?


21 posted on 05/01/2017 8:34:07 AM PDT by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: pierrem15
To be very particular, the war was about who was going to make the decision to end slavery and when: the southern States where slavery was practiced; or, the national government of the United States.

No it wasn't. That is just the propaganda that has been sold to justify the deaths of 750,000 people in a senseless war. The war was over who would control the money flow created by the Southern States.

Slavery got tossed in as a cause for the war effort about 2 years after the war started. Prior to that time, there was no intention of eliminating slavery.

The effort to portray the Civil War as an effort to free the slaves is contrary to the real history. It is just an after the fact rationalization for all the carnage.

29 posted on 05/01/2017 8:58:15 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: pierrem15

The South saw secession as a strategy to preserve and even extend slavery, not just relinquish it slowly on terms of its choosing. Then, after the utter defeat of the Confederacy, the South spun the elaborate myth of the Lost Cause, which depicted the antebellum South as founded on happy slaves tending abundant fields, presided over by a gallant ruling class enjoying lives of virtue and noble leisure. The truth of the matter is that slavery was profoundly wrong, with the South both wrong and foolish to secede and go to war to try to preserve it.


38 posted on 05/01/2017 9:10:37 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: pierrem15
I don't believe slavery would have existed much longer: Brazil abolished slavery in 1888. The Europeans would have discovered that cotton could be grown more cheaply in India and elsewhere and the market for slave produced agricultural products would have inevitably declined, and the moral and political pressure in the South to end the practice would have become overwhelming.

Slavery in the US could only exist in an environment where land was essentially free. A free man farming his own land would always out-produce a slave who only worked as hard as he needed to avoid punishment. Thus, free men could out-bid slave plantation owners for land. Sooner, rather than later, slavery would fall to economic reality.

101 posted on 05/02/2017 8:34:05 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Big government is attractive to those who think that THEY will be in control of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: pierrem15

All governments through the world ended slavery in about a 60 year period of time, when it had been ongoing for several centuries, except for some Muslim groups where it is still practiced today.

The war wasn’t about slavery. It was about State’s rights and the War of Northern Aggression. The South ended slavery before the North. The South simply had more plantation and farming slaves than the North.


478 posted on 05/12/2017 6:27:47 AM PDT by Cvengr ( Adversity in life & death is inevitable; Stress is optional through faith in Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson