The Instigator
us
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
theta_pinch
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

was the Civil war about slavery

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,188 times Debate No: 43901
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

us

Con

i am against that the Civil war was over slavery
theta_pinch

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
us

Con

First things first, the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln; Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." Lincoln was against social and political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriages, supported the Illinois Constitution's prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, defended a slave owner who was seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended slaves or runaways themselves, and he was a lifelong advocate of colonization - of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America - anywhere but in the United States. In August of 1852 Lincoln said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it" what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Lincoln also said on September 18th, 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." In 1861 Lincoln was asked "why not let the South go in peace?" He replied by saying "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" I have found no proof that Lincoln was a slave owner, but I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that he was not seeking to abolish slavery.

Two acts of Congress were passed during the Civil War, One in 1864 (13 Stat. 11) and one in 1866 (14 Stat. 321) which allowed slave owners whose slaves enlisted or were drafted into the Union military to file a claim against the Federal Government for loss of the slave's services. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freed slaves in the Southern or 'rebellious' states but in border-states that were loyal to the Union, slavery continued to be legal. If a slave ran away to join the military and the owner knew where and when he joined, the owner could file a compensation claim as long as he or she was loyal to the Union. There were also free blacks who owned slaves. And something else you might not know, it was the Africans who sold their own people into slavery. Union Generals Grant and Sherman were slave owners as well. Confederate Generals Jackson and Lee were not.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis not only envisioned black confederate veterans but also envisioned them receiving bounty lands for their service. There would have been no future for slavery once the armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.
theta_pinch

Pro

Con is partially correct; originally the civil war WASN'T about slavery; originally it was about southern states seceding. However in the last portion of the civil war it was decided to make it about slavery leading to the Emancipation Proclamation.

CONCLUSION
I have proved my case.

Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org...



Note: Technically con plagiarized his argument. The argument was copied and pasted from http://www.confederateamericanpride.com...
Debate Round No. 2
us

Con

The Emancipation Proclamation was a document that officially changed nothing -- Congress had already passed laws outlawing slavery in the rebel states, which was the only territory Lincoln covered in the Proclamation. (Lincoln the politician wanted to keep border-state voters happy.) I got this of the internet which proves my case that Lincoln didn't free any slaves it was about states rights.
theta_pinch

Pro

Okay then; here’s an article from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com... please read all of it.

here’s an excerpt with the evidence underlined:

MYTH #1: THE CIVIL WAR WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY.

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).

"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told Live Science. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"

In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.


With the Confederacy in it's secession documents admitting the war was about slavery; it seems cons position is indefensible.

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).

"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"

In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.

- See more at: http://www.livescience.com...

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).

"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"

In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.

- See more at: http://www.livescience.com...
Myth #1: The Civil War wasn't about slavery.
Myth #1: The Civil War wasn't about slavery.
Myth #1: The Civil War wasn't about slavery.
Debate Round No. 3
us

Con

THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today"big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

[Editor's note: In 1860, when the Southern states were moving toward secession, the Tariff of 1857 had reduced tariffs to the lowest level since 1812. The Morrill Tariff Act of 1861 was not passed until after several states had seceded, thus reducing the number of anti-tariff representatives in Congress. No Southern state even mentioned the tariff in its act of secession. In short, the claim that secession occurred because of high tariffs is a historical fiction."TGW]

The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun
theta_pinch

Pro

Con is completely ignoring the admittance of the Confederate states that the war was about slavery. Rather con is trying to show the union wasn't trying to free slaves which is irrelevant to the resolution.

However it does seem the Union and Confederacy were fighting for different reasons. The union seems to have been fighting for the reintegration of southern states into the union while the Confederacy was fighting to keep slavery legal.

Because the resolution is the civil war was not about slavery con cannot allow either side of the war to have been about slavery but the Confederacy openly admitted it was.


All con is doing is repeating essentially the same argument over and over again never making any response to my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
us

Con

1. The authority in this field is Thomas DiLorenzo. See in particular his books The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, Prima Lifestyles, 2002, and Lincoln Unmasked: What You"re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe, 2006, and short articles. See also Government Growth, the Party of Lincoln, and George W. Bush by Anthony Gregory, and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War, Open Court, 1996.
2. In 1860, the proceeds from tariffs comprised 95 percent of federal revenue. The secession of the Southern states thus meant considerable loss to the federal treasury. Expenditures " i.e., pork barrel politics " would have to fall, and Lincoln"s and his Republican henchmen"s raison d""tre become much less viable. That, they would not abide.
3. Republicans demanded the blockade and bombardment of Southern ports because the Confederate constitution had outlawed protectionist tariffs. Given a 50 percent tax on goods imported via New York, and a 10 percent tax in Charleston (South Carolina), then much trade would divert from Northern to Southern ports " to the detriment of the former and the profit of the latter. This the Republicans could not abide: hence even before the War started they demanded the blockade and bombardment of Southern ports. See also David Gordon"s review of A Century of War: Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt.
4. Native Americans have as many grounds as Southerners to despise Dishonest Abe. The man who gave the military a free hand to oppress Northerners and Southerners also gave carte blanche to federal troops and cavalry to exterminate Indian tribes in the West.
5. Canadians, too, have good reason to laugh in derision at Americans delusions about "self determination." Just as Southerners were forcibly denied the right of secession, on two occasions (1775 and 1812) Americans invaded Canada in order to force annexation upon unwilling British North Americans. Canadians declined the American "offers" because they have long known something that utterly escapes Americans: a benign despot across the seas, particularly one that takes no more than an intermittent interest in his overseas Dominions, is far preferable to a malignant one within the Beltway. Fortunately for the liberty of Canadians, on each occasion the Americans withdrew in ignominy and disarray.
6. In his memoirs (1891), Sherman wrote that he met with Lincoln after the March to the Sea. The president was eager to hear stories about how thousands of Southern civilians (mostly children, women, the elderly and the infirm) had been plundered, sometimes murdered, and rendered homeless. According to Sherman, Lincoln laughed uproariously at the stories. One of Sherman"s biographers (Lee Kennett,Sherman: A Soldier"s Life, Harper, 2002), who otherwise writes very favourably about the general, concludes that if the Confederates had won the war then they would have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against non-combatants. these are six reasons why the Civil war was not over slavery. Please vote for my side.
theta_pinch

Pro

Con has never responded to any of my arguments nor provided any rebuttal to the south explicitly declaring that the war was about slavery. All con has done is talked about Lincoln and the laws he passed during the time which has no relevanc to this debate. Con also never gave any arguments from scholarly sources. The only scholarly source he gives is in his conclusion and con never gives any information from those sources instead telling me to read the books which does con no good in this debate. Also every book title exept one suggests that it's talking about Lincoln. During this debate con's arguments seem more oriented towards proving that Lincoln was not an abolitionist rather than proving the civil war was not about slavery since almost every argument was about Lincoln. Also the Confederacies admittance of the war being about slavery automattically proves the civil war WAS about slavery. Only one side had to be in the Civil War fighting for slavery for that be what the civil war was about; and because as I said before the south had openly admitted to being in the war for slavery the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by us 2 years ago
us
ok
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
yes I am in the process of that.
Posted by us 2 years ago
us
aren't you going to post your argument
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
No it's not plagiarism as long as you give them credit for it. I did copy and paste but I stated where I copied and pasted from. Because you weren't giving any credit to the people who wrote what you copied and pasted its plagiarism. Basically you need to give your source for the quote.
Posted by us 2 years ago
us
theta pinch you even plagiarized stuff off the internet.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
I think the problem was plagiarism because you didn't give a source but had a direct quote.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
So was this plagiarized as well? Give me a minute.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
A long as you source information in future debates it will be fine.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Well it's not acceptable on DDO.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
ustheta_pinchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized two of his debate rounds that I am aware of. 1 Pro pointed out and the other comes from http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/walter-williams.html. Shocking Con no points for you. Pro I wish you could have had a better debate.