Posted on Aug 13, 2015
Controversy surrounding the motivations that drove the Civil War. West Point History Professor gives his take on the issue.
8.23K
45
51
7
7
0
Posted in these groups: 
Confederate Flag
Civil War
Confederate Flag Civil War
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
5
5
0
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Major; An interesting video.
Unfortunately the professor seems to ignore the fact that the "Northern Propaganda" was "Preserving the Union." and the fact that the "Southern Propaganda" was "Preserving States Rights". [Primarily because "Smash Slavery" and "Long Live Slavery" simply didn't sell.]
He also appears to ignore the fact that the federal government had, in fact, treated various areas of the United States of America as if they were independent countries immediately prior to the Civil War.
He also appears to ignore the fact that Mr. Lincoln simply didn't care if slavery continued or not as long as "the Union was preserved". [Admittedly Mr. Lincoln, personally, didn't like slavery, he had no real opposition to it as a "national issue" if allowing slavery to continue would result in the preservation of the Union.)
He also appears to ignore the fact that Jefferson Davis was actually in favour of emancipating the slaves using a program similar to the ones that the Northern states had used while the Southern slaveholders were opposed to the immediate emancipation without compensation that many Northern "Abolitionists" (some of whose families had received financial compensation for emancipating their slaves) were demanding and/or believed that the economy of the Southern states would be ruined without slavery.
He also appears to ignore the fact that many of the "Abolitionists" were equally in favour of shipping all the "freed" slaves back to Africa (but weren't actually very keen on providing them with the assistance they would need to establish themselves in "their new country" - a country in which there wouldn't be a single literate or educated person).
He also appears to ignore the fact that - if "abolishing slavery" was what the Civil War was ACTUALLY about then - the Union would have completely abolished slavery within its own boundaries (which it didn't do).
I won't say that "slavery" didn't have something to do with the American Civil War, but it most certainly was NOT the sole causus belli that some people would have you believe it was (and might not even have been the major one).
Unfortunately the professor seems to ignore the fact that the "Northern Propaganda" was "Preserving the Union." and the fact that the "Southern Propaganda" was "Preserving States Rights". [Primarily because "Smash Slavery" and "Long Live Slavery" simply didn't sell.]
He also appears to ignore the fact that the federal government had, in fact, treated various areas of the United States of America as if they were independent countries immediately prior to the Civil War.
He also appears to ignore the fact that Mr. Lincoln simply didn't care if slavery continued or not as long as "the Union was preserved". [Admittedly Mr. Lincoln, personally, didn't like slavery, he had no real opposition to it as a "national issue" if allowing slavery to continue would result in the preservation of the Union.)
He also appears to ignore the fact that Jefferson Davis was actually in favour of emancipating the slaves using a program similar to the ones that the Northern states had used while the Southern slaveholders were opposed to the immediate emancipation without compensation that many Northern "Abolitionists" (some of whose families had received financial compensation for emancipating their slaves) were demanding and/or believed that the economy of the Southern states would be ruined without slavery.
He also appears to ignore the fact that many of the "Abolitionists" were equally in favour of shipping all the "freed" slaves back to Africa (but weren't actually very keen on providing them with the assistance they would need to establish themselves in "their new country" - a country in which there wouldn't be a single literate or educated person).
He also appears to ignore the fact that - if "abolishing slavery" was what the Civil War was ACTUALLY about then - the Union would have completely abolished slavery within its own boundaries (which it didn't do).
I won't say that "slavery" didn't have something to do with the American Civil War, but it most certainly was NOT the sole causus belli that some people would have you believe it was (and might not even have been the major one).
(5)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I couldn't agree more Sir, there is always more to history than what we are taught in school.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
COL Ted Mc Sir, looking at the reasons listed by the states that drafted their articles of secession it seems clear that slavery, while not the ONLY point, was unquestionably the primary one.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC Yinon Weiss - Major; If you toss in "the economic ramifications of the forcible and instantaneous ending of slavery (without compensation)", I'd buy that "slavery" was A "primary cause".
It wasn't the only "primary cause" but it was the only one which didn't seem resolvable between those who demanded that it be abolished instantly (and didn't care about the economic consequences [mainly because they wouldn't have felt them]) and those who didn't want it abolished instantaneously (in good part because of the economic harm they foresaw befalling themselves).
It wasn't the only "primary cause" but it was the only one which didn't seem resolvable between those who demanded that it be abolished instantly (and didn't care about the economic consequences [mainly because they wouldn't have felt them]) and those who didn't want it abolished instantaneously (in good part because of the economic harm they foresaw befalling themselves).
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
How can this topic be covered without bringing up the Union generals keeping personal slaves through the war, or the fact that Lincoln and many others wanted to ship the slaves off to Central / South America after they were freed? Way to feed the stereotypical view of all southerners being slave owning black hating racists while the Union was the light that brought forth the slaves freedom.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
How many bonafied historians have to weigh in before people will understand the facts surrounding the issues of the Civil War?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
So if the civil war was about slavery, and the South succeeded, why was there a war? We 'had' to preserve the Union? Really, who decided that? Why couldn't the North and South live in peace with their respective choices?
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT Kristin Wiley think about it- sure it could have been as easy as calling it a day and having two separate nations. What about the territories? They belong to the U.S., but the CSA would want some of them too! So if the war wasn't fought then and there, it would have escalated later over the territories, and that war would have been more costly, and would have made this country unrecognizable. When DC is literally a stones throw away from Robert E. Lee's house, that would mean our nation's capital would be at a constant threat to attack and destruction; even if we did split the country, that doesn't mean the two nations would ever be on good terms. Eventually it would have to be one or the other. And if you look at history from 1798 forward, you would know that there was no changing their minds later... The answer to every question in the antebellum period is always "South Carolina".
(1)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
So you're essentially saying that the people of the United States living in the South who wanted to seceded could not because they would be taking U.S. territories? Aren't we a Nation for the People? Weren't those AMERICAN citizens who made that decision? Based on what you're saying the Union fought the Confederacy to force those Americans to their will and keep those territories. The South may have seceded in part due to slavery, but that's clearly not what the war was fought over.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
They fired on US troops before the U.S. Made any hostile actions. They left a nation for the people to form their own. The American argument can also be used to justify illegal immigration from Mexico, don't they live in North America? Shouldn't they be considered American?
The fact is a bunch of slave owners voted to essentially rebel against their government. The south took up arms against their government. Under any other circumstance that would be considered treason punishable by death. The leave them alone strategy wasn't going to happen; McClellan ran against Lincoln on that strategy, the people- AMERICAN people- voted against it, because the AMERICAN people (at least the ones that didn't take up arms against their government) wanted to preserve the union.
The fact is a bunch of slave owners voted to essentially rebel against their government. The south took up arms against their government. Under any other circumstance that would be considered treason punishable by death. The leave them alone strategy wasn't going to happen; McClellan ran against Lincoln on that strategy, the people- AMERICAN people- voted against it, because the AMERICAN people (at least the ones that didn't take up arms against their government) wanted to preserve the union.
(0)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
"SSgt (Join to see)
Hahahaha. Mexicans should be considered American because they live in North America? Are you serious? Clearly, we are obviously discussing the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; the country and it's citizens. Not the continent. Your argument is so flawed I'm not going to waste my time pointing out every discrepancy with it. If you want to believe the lies told about the civil war, go ahead. I refuse to remain that ignorant.
Hahahaha. Mexicans should be considered American because they live in North America? Are you serious? Clearly, we are obviously discussing the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; the country and it's citizens. Not the continent. Your argument is so flawed I'm not going to waste my time pointing out every discrepancy with it. If you want to believe the lies told about the civil war, go ahead. I refuse to remain that ignorant.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google