It was about slavery

[SHOOTALL]

So it was a back room deal , should have known .

[Brewster]

Isn't all politics?

And it was (is) 3/4 rather than 2/3 to ratify.

# State Date * 
1 Illinois Feb 1, 1865 
2 Rhode Island Feb 2, 1865 
3 Michigan Feb 3, 1865 
4 Maryland Feb 3, 1865 
5 New York Feb 3, 1865 
6 Pennsylvania Feb 3, 1865 
7 West Virginia Feb 3, 1865 
8 Missouri Feb 6, 1865 
9 Maine Feb 7, 1865 
10 Kansas Feb 7, 1865 
11 Massachusetts Feb 7, 1865 
12 Virginia Feb 9, 1865 
13 Ohio Feb 10, 1865 
14 Indiana Feb 13, 1865 
15 Nevada Feb 16, 1865 
16 Louisiana Feb 17, 1865 
17 Minnesota Feb 23, 1865 
18 Wisconsin Feb 24, 1865 
19 Vermont Mar 8, 1865 
20 Tennessee Apr 7, 1865 
21 Arkansas Apr 14, 1865 
22 Connecticut May 4, 1865 
23 New Hampshire Jul 1, 1865 
24 South Carolina Nov 13, 1865 
25 Alabama Dec 2, 1865 
26 North Carolina Dec 4, 1865 
27 Georgia Dec 6, 1865 *
28 Oregon Dec 8, 1865 
29 California Dec 19, 1865 
30 Florida Dec 28, 1865 
31 Iowa Jan 15, 1866 
32 New Jersey Jan 23, 1866 
33 Texas Feb 18, 1870 
34 Delaware Feb 12, 1901 
35 Kentucky Mar 18, 1976 
36 Mississippi Mar 16, 1995 * 
Ratified in 309 days

* Mississippi ratified the amendment in 1995, but because the state never officially notified the US Archivist, the ratification is not official.

This amendment was specifically rejected by Delaware on Feb 8, 1865; by Kentucky on Feb 24, 1865; by New Jersey on Mar 16, 1865; and by Mississippi on Dec 4, 1865.

[wncchester]

"Opinion: Leonard Pitts Jr.: Civil War was about slavery, nothing more"

Ah, guess that establishes the 'truth' at last and all it took was a silly "opinion" piece in a small newspaper by a pompous northern race baiter to prove it.  Goodness.

I've spot checked this thread from time to time for several years now.  Seems the demogoguery wheels keep spinning but it's not going anywhere, seems some guys have an idea fixation that won't change no matter the facts, so what's the point of it all?

[yellowtail3]

It was about slavery

It was indeed.

[williamlayton]

It was not about slavery from the North's point of view. In the Union it had been contained---that is while the South was in the Union.
It was about slavery and the growth of it from the Souths point of view. Now, be in mind that not all in the South had a care about slavery.
The rich and influential did and they controlled theteperment. Many in the South had a fear of what the culture would be like with salves freed. Even though at this time there was no talk about that.
Could it be about the perceived people that would be freed. They were, after all, perceived to be less than human--mentally?
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

I've spot checked this thread from time to time for several years now.  Seems the demogoguery wheels keep spinning but it's not going anywhere, seems some guys have an idea fixation that won't change no matter the facts, so what's the point of it all?

You Sir are a Prince and again I'm reminded of just why I hold you and JFK in such high regard, his quotes:

Political ideology arguments: When you can offer no trueful, accurate, and complete facts to support your argument, win by out-talking or talking over your opponent — especially if you know their argument is supported by all the above, but more importantly, if you don’t want anyone else hearing what they have to say. This tactic is the accepted norm today.

Today it seems many people not only want their own opinion, but want their own set of inaccurate or untruthful facts to support their opinion.

[ironfoot]

Lincoln was elected on an anti-slavery Republican platform. The South saw it would be outnumbered soon by free states and felt it's significant property interest in slaves was threatened. The South seceded in order to preserve slavery in the states, and spread slavery to the territories. It was a Rebellion to Perpetuate Slavery. The North fought to preserve the Union, and representative democracy.

 

[painted horse]

I know this is a forum for the Civil War or War of Northern Aggression, I suppose what you call it would depend alot on where you're from or maybe what history books you were taught from.  Personally, I was born in the Great Pacific Northwest, and some seem to want to hold that against me even though that was in 1946 and I was to young to enlist on either side.  I've been in most of the states in the ? Union ? and have been called a Yankee, Honky, Gringo, Whitey, racist, bigot and a few others that I can't mention here,  all by people that didn't  know me, or want to for that matter.  I'm actually of Scottish descent with my portion of Cherokee blood at 1/4 thrown in for good measure, but I'm neither of those, I'm an American.  I read this forum with great interest because, well, it's interesting and I am very impressed with the historical knowledge some of you have.  But truthfully I'm really not concerned with who did what to whom first, or most, or why, 150 years ago. Thats done, can't be changed. But I am concerned with whats going on today and I sincerely hope you Southern boys won't hold my Northern birth against me (which by the way I had no control over) and we can be united in this new cause, what I would call the saving of the USA.  If you would rather continue fighting the other one, well thats up to you, but, when this next one comes, us "Yankees" are really gonna need your help.   God Bless America..

[subdjoe]

It's more about countering the 5th grade textbook view that is so pervasive.  But it seems that anything that gets brought up to show that the south was not evil incarnate there are some who can't resist pointing fingers and shouting "SLAVERY!"  "SUMTER!"  and thinking that is the totality of the history and context of the events leading up to secession and The War.

[williamlayton]

Joe
Don't be so defensive.
No one thinks the South or Southerners are evil.
What we are discussing is not feelings. That was the primary tool used by the firebrands of the South to drive opinion.
If all you ever read is/are textbooks--then read them all. Some are more southern. there are all classes of opinion--and that is what we have here is opinion on the known facts.
To judge the war, at this point, is, well, pointless. It has happened. It is over. That part of history does not/did not effect today as much as the sorry slobs we voted for.
There was a group of very wealthy folks whose fortune was tied to slavery. They wanted to keep slavery alive and in good health. They were the main firebrands in South Carolina.
There were a lot of reasons for the war--the Firebrands drove the idea of secession.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

If all you ever read is/are textbooks--then read them all. Some are more southern. there are all classes of opinion--and that is what we have here is opinion on the known facts.
==============================================================

There was a group of very wealthy folks whose fortune was tied to slavery. They wanted to keep slavery alive and in good health. They were the main firebrands in South Carolina.
There were a lot of reasons for the war--the Firebrands drove the idea of secession.

"Read all of them."  Yes, if you get a degree in US history you will be exposed to them.  My point exactly.  Most people are not history majors and so don't get exposed to them.  But the basic history texts that are all most people are ever exposed to paint the south as evil because it allowed slavery (never mind that the US allowed it, and that several northern states allowed it, it was only the south that was evil because of it). 

There were no firebrands in the north, Bill?  Thank you for helping me make my point about demonizing the south.
 
I'll stand by my statement, thank you very much.   

[Ruskin]

For a feeling of what Lincoln and others thought of the slve one needs to understand the policy of colonization. Lincoln had spoken of this in a debate with Douglass. 

Most thought slaves were inferior to whites and wanted them moved to other countries.  Free them but move them out of USA.

[Brewster]

"There was a group of very wealthy folks whose fortune was tied to slavery. They wanted to keep slavery alive and in good health. They were the main firebrands in South Carolina.
There were a lot of reasons for the war--the Firebrands drove the idea of secession."

And the rest of the slave-holding states, as well.  The various declarations of the secessionist states touched on taxes, tarrifs and such but always came back to keeping slavery alive and expanding.  Even the Feb, 1861 Peace Convention.

[squirrellluck]

Painted Horse, don't let these ol'boys fool ya. There are a lot of us ol' southerners that have served this country since the war of northern aggression. And will continue to do so And served with many fine yankees too This war will be hashed and rehashed forever and neither side will be swayed. I know why my ancestors fought in the confederate army and why the fought during the revolution. Hint, they never owned slaves or plantations. 

[subdjoe]

Painted Horse, don't let these ol'boys fool ya. There are a lot of us ol' southerners that have served this country since the war of northern aggression. And will continue to do so And served with many fine yankees too This war will be hashed and rehashed forever and neither side will be swayed. I know why my ancestors fought in the confederate army and why the fought during the revolution. Hint, they never owned slaves or plantations.

A disproportionately large number of those in the armed forces are, and historically have been, from the South.  From the CBS BNET site, 2004:

The overall recruitment base for both officers and enlisted personnel is less dispersed. More than 40 percent of all new personnel enlisted or commissioned in 2002 came from the South, where about 36 percent of the total U.S. population ages 18 to 24 lives (see Table 1). Southerners were overrepresented among new recruits in all services, ranging from 39 percent in the Marines to 42 percent in the Air Force in 2002.

[williamlayton]

40% is not a disporpotionate large number of 100%. 98% are American citizens.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

40% is not a disporpotionate large number of 100%. 98% are American citizens.
Blessings

From a section of the country that accounts for about 36% of the population?  Yes, that IS out of proportion.  Not by a huge amount, but out of proportion.

Besides, that 40% is just the recruits, retention takes the overall southern make up clsoer to 45.   Actual boots on the ground combat troops, not support in combat areas, but 11 Bravos, last I saw a few years ago, is over 50 % southern.  (oral communication from an officer who dealt with manpower, got to talking about it at a reenactment).  Most under represented are New England states and California. 

[subdjoe]

Yes, every southerner was a firebrand for slavery:

Captain William Burt was my Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather. He was born in 1797 and died in 1900. He fought in the war of 1812 and the Civil War, in the latter he was a Captain. He was a vocal abolitionist in rural Mississippi. He debated Jefferson Davis prior to the start of the Civil War and opposed slavery and secession. Once the war started and local farmers' property started being destroyed by Union soldiers he started his own Confederate unit called Burt's Avengers. He was 64 at the time, an age that most never reached then. He had 17 children all with the same wife. The picture on my profile page is him.

From the National Park Service, Museums - Lower Mississippi: 

503    William Burt Tombstone at Harmony Baptist Church    Mississippi    Copiah County, southeast of Crystal Springs    Tombstone of an early settler who lived in three centuries, having been born January 30, 1797, and died May 19, 1900. Burt built area's first sawmill and was a vocal abolitionist.    Public    Working People; Cultural Diversity    
   
   Burt lived through the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. He debated with Jefferson Davis, opposing the South's involvement in the Civil War.

So, he was against slavery, against the War, but when the federal government decided to wage war on the people of the south, he waged war back.  Yep......it was all about slavery and nothing else.

[SHOOTALL]

when one opens their mind to reality they will see the war was fought for many reasons one being slavery . One may also notice slavery wasn't the main cause . One will also notice in todays world the issue of slavery serves the cause better than states rights or enomic decline in the South .

[williamlayton]

The big bagaboo in the States Rights issue---and it was all Southern born and bread--was the rights of states to option on slavery.
The North wanted to preserve the Union.
Diversified small reasons.
Blessings

[Gary G]

All wars are fought to make the elite a profit and greater power for the president at the cost of liberty for the people, who are merely expendable pawns. Propaganda must be convincing and that is not too hard to achieve. This was not a civil war where, by definition, two factions are fighting for the control of the one government. One side wanted absolute rule and the profits thereof, and the other side wanted to be left alone.

[williamlayton]

But, they didn't want to leave alone.
Blessings

[ironfoot]

All wars are fought to make the elite a profit and greater power for the president at the cost of liberty for the people, who are merely expendable pawns. Propaganda must be convincing and that is not too hard to achieve. This was not a civil war where, by definition, two factions are fighting for the control of the one government. One side wanted absolute rule and the profits thereof, and the other side wanted to be left alone.

It was an armed revolt in order to overthrow the results of a Presidential election.
The motive was to keep their substantial investment in "property", human slaves.

[subdjoe]

All wars are fought to make the elite a profit and greater power for the president at the cost of liberty for the people, who are merely expendable pawns. Propaganda must be convincing and that is not too hard to achieve. This was not a civil war where, by definition, two factions are fighting for the control of the one government. One side wanted absolute rule and the profits thereof, and the other side wanted to be left alone.

It was an armed revolt in order to overthrow the results of a Presidential election.
The motive was to keep their substantial investment in "property", human slaves.

No, there was no attempt to replace the President of the United States.  There was no attempt to overthrow anything.  Seven states, in the same manner that the colonies left Mother England, found that the central government had become intolerable and left.  Hardly trying to overthrow the government. 

It is lies like this one that Iron is spreading for the revisionists that show that the north is still fighting to demonize and subjugate the south.

 (note that I am NOT calling him a liar, just that he is spreading the lies of others).

[williamlayton]

And, history disagree's
Blessings

[Gary G]

Who's history William?

And that same sixth grade, government school history makes all the death, misery, poverty, and deception into a just war. It would be unthinkable for it to be recorded otherwise. We might then question our overlords.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was it that said "we kids used to root for the Indians because in our history book if the calvary won it was a great victory, but if the Indians won, it was a massacre"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the ancient histories, as one of our wits say, are just fables that have been agreed upon.  ~Voltaire, Jeannot et Colin

[subdjoe]

And, history disagree's
Blessings

And abortion is all about choice, right?

Show us anything that supports the claim that the seven Confederate states wanted to unseat the president and take control of the Union.

[ironfoot]

Lincoln was elected President of the whole country, not just the North. The South would not abide by the results of the presidential election, and engaged in armed revolt.  The North fought to preserve the Union and representative democracy. The South fought to perpetuate it's significant investment in "property" in  the form of human slaves. Sub may see it differently, but I won't be discourteous and say he is spreading lies.



"...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."


http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

[ironfoot]

"...I’m convinced that the underlying cause of the Civil War was the South’s determination to perpetuate slavery...."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-04-19-civil-war-history-wickham-family.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[williamlayton]

Was the South willing to stop the expansion of slavery?
By the South I am not pointing the finger at anyone but the firebrands whose weatlh was built on slavery and the continued growth was the source of sustaining this wealth.
Blessings