• Not so Conscientiously

    It was to forge a Confederacy founded on the right of one man to own another. The horror was sufferable for millennia and, Due to lack of technology, Was widely accepted so not questioned or questioned at the risk of alienation at best or tar and feathers or worse.
    That is to say that the Confederate soldier was fighting for hearth and home under an evil ideology.

  • I haven’t studied Us history enough to tell

    I don’t know the details and all of that but I do know that before the civil war= slavery and after the civil war= no slavery. So there might have been other reasons, I’m not denying that, But ending slavery was probably the main one. I mean, Say the war only happened for the other reasons than ending slavery, Would it have happened at all? I don’t think so.

  • The Civil war was mainly over slavery.

    The only significant right of a state that the south cared about was about was slavery. You can look at coverage of Abraham Lincoln at the time, This was the south's big fear, And they acted on it. The "States rights" narrative was deliberately crafted by people after the civil war to push a political narrative.

  • Of course it was.

    It baffles me that people say it was just about taxes, Or the economy, Or states rights and fail to see how slavery tied into all of those things. Slavery is mentioned throughout the articles of secession multiple times and by other confederate figures in speeches. The Lost Cause myth is a delusion perpetuated by southerners who don't want to cope with the fact that they were the baddies in the civil war.

  • Slavery was what led to succession and formation of the confederacy.

    Not to split hairs but the civil war actually started because Abraham Lincoln refused to acknowledge the suceeded states as their own sovereign entity. When the confederacy attempted to claim US forts in disputed territory, Lincoln unofficially declared war by activating militia units to fight the confederates and it escalated from there.

    The majority of southerners were not slave owners, And a major reason for the ferocity of the conflict was state loyalty. Another major reason was an apathetic opinion towards the evil of slavery.

  • Yes, And No.

    The Union Government cared more that the South was seceding, Than that the South had slaves, I'm thinking.
    The South seceded in a foolhardy and brash manner that made conflict all too easy, If they hadn't been a bunch of firebrands, May be that the South could have Seceded peacefully.
    I think people disagreed then, And they disagree now, What The Civil War was about.
    I don't disagree that slavery played a part, That many of the other complicated issues of state sovereignty, Finances, Trade, Etc, Were 'related to slavery.
    But I'm more in the states rights opinion myself.
    I 'do think the Civil War 'was about slavery, But I find your opinion question too binarily for my liking.

    Individual States certainly aren't what they once were.
    In power, Identity, Ability.

  • Yes & no. Slavery was the indirect cause.

    The US Constitution recognized slavery. Lincoln was elected on a platform that he would prohibit slavery in the new Western territories of Texas & Kansas. Previously it was up to each state to determine if slavery was allowed. So Lincoln declared that he would violate the Constitution and usurp states-rights.

    As a result, Several states seceded BEFORE Lincoln took office. Pres Buchanan disliked this, But his (legally correct IMO) view was that he had no power to stop the secession. Note that historically secession had been considered by several states earlier for entirely different reasons.

    Based on secession, S. Carolina ordered the US Federal government to abandon Fort Sumter. However Lincoln, Having just taken office, Rejected the secessions, And attempted to re-supply the Fort, Which precipitated a battle.

    Prior to this, Lincoln had attempted to negotiate a settlement with the seceded states that would assure slavery continued in current slave-states, But not spread Westward.

    In synopsis; Lincoln promoted an unconstitutional act that violated states-rights. Several states seceded over this clear violation of states rights, Which would NOT have impacted slavery in those states. The civil war directly about states-rights and the power of states to secede. It was precipitated by Lincoln's clearly unconstitutional claim that he would prohibit the spread of slavery to new states - not to prohibit slavery where it then exists.

    Subsequent to the Civil War, SCOTUS made a remarkably hypocritical and self-serving decision, That Texas, Which had validly seceded from Mexico based on Santa Ana violating the Mexican constitution, However they ruled that Texas secession from the US when Lincoln violated the US Constitution was invalid. They cited the long-defunct 1777 US articles of confederation, To which Texas was not a signatory, As justification. Ridiculous.

    Lincoln: Great moralist, Terrible president.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.