3
3
0
https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/ [login to see] 37939/
The Civil War was a fight about slavery. All arguments to the contrary cannot hold water.
The Civil War was a fight about slavery. All arguments to the contrary cannot hold water.
PragerU
Posted from facebook.comPosted in these groups: 
American History
Civil War
American History Civil War
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
0
0
0
There are a lot of reasons that people hold on to the non-slave angle. One of those reasons would be that Mr. Lincoln was not as pro-black as portrayed, coupled with his either ignorance of the result or forcing of the result. In other words, "lets free all the slaves but not take the time to consider where they will all go or live. As a side issue; you're free, but don't come North."
America is at this time, also starting to be as filthy politically as mother Europe. We're lying, cheating and stealing to get our way. For slavery to be the "WMD" issue of its time, there needs to be a lot more in the press, in congress and history in general to back it up. What little we have up until Fort Sumter is pretty weak. In other words, making up an issue to go to war is hardly a new concept in American politics. And the proof is in the pudding. What resettlement divisions headed South post-war? Um...none? So what did good Mr. Lincoln's cabinet gander would happen to the newly freed black folk? As they had (a la' Sherman) already laid waste to most of the South's infrastructure, there would be widespread humanitarian issues to contend with as well, which the North either had ignorance of (fairy tail belief that "it'll all work out") or a deliberate punishment exercise.
As for me, I've read about both sides of the issue. The hard part is that I respect all of the "for" authors and I respect all of the "against" authors as well. Both make great arguments.
America is at this time, also starting to be as filthy politically as mother Europe. We're lying, cheating and stealing to get our way. For slavery to be the "WMD" issue of its time, there needs to be a lot more in the press, in congress and history in general to back it up. What little we have up until Fort Sumter is pretty weak. In other words, making up an issue to go to war is hardly a new concept in American politics. And the proof is in the pudding. What resettlement divisions headed South post-war? Um...none? So what did good Mr. Lincoln's cabinet gander would happen to the newly freed black folk? As they had (a la' Sherman) already laid waste to most of the South's infrastructure, there would be widespread humanitarian issues to contend with as well, which the North either had ignorance of (fairy tail belief that "it'll all work out") or a deliberate punishment exercise.
As for me, I've read about both sides of the issue. The hard part is that I respect all of the "for" authors and I respect all of the "against" authors as well. Both make great arguments.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Martin Querin
@CPT Jack Durish Maj John Bell SFC Bernard Walko I understand your perspective PO3 Donald Murphy, the problem is there is always two sides to every conflict. The Civil War was about slavery to those that were it's proponents in the South. The Civil War was about States Rights to those opposed to secession in the North. So both arguments are correct, it just depends on whether you are talking about the South or the North's reason.
The North didn't want a war, but there was a lot of political pressure to abolish slavery for multiple reasons. They didn't really need it and it was a nuisance, slaves would escape from their masters in the south and run to the north.
The South used slaves and sharecroppers to make the few entitled landowners exceedingly wealthy. So the abolition of slavery was unacceptable to them, no matter the nuisance of runaways. This left the politicians on the two sides between a rock and a hard place.
No you can't have slaves and no you can't secede, was a similar challenge to the leaders in the south as the evil King George's insufferable tax was to the colonies just a short while earlier. And we had just established that government was to be a pact of the consenting governed. So another revolution was the natural answer.
The North didn't want a war, but there was a lot of political pressure to abolish slavery for multiple reasons. They didn't really need it and it was a nuisance, slaves would escape from their masters in the south and run to the north.
The South used slaves and sharecroppers to make the few entitled landowners exceedingly wealthy. So the abolition of slavery was unacceptable to them, no matter the nuisance of runaways. This left the politicians on the two sides between a rock and a hard place.
No you can't have slaves and no you can't secede, was a similar challenge to the leaders in the south as the evil King George's insufferable tax was to the colonies just a short while earlier. And we had just established that government was to be a pact of the consenting governed. So another revolution was the natural answer.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
That will be kinda true until you realize who we are and where we came from. Unlike Adam and Eve who showed up miraculously in a part of the Middle East, the founding fathers were from England. An England that since 1100 had been perfecting the art of subterfuge and political shenanigans. Follow piracy back to it's "year dot" beginning. It was Trojan Horse warfare perfected. All of this was in Washington, Franklin and Jefferson's DNA. How could it *NOT* have been? There's little going on politically today that is "new". Only the electronicization of life makes the crime's results travel faster.
As to the slaves - they were still not citizens in the true unfettered sense of the word. They had citizenship in the collective sense, ie they could join the military or serve some other purpose as and when the nation required a purpose to be served. But the application of "law" to the freed black was little better than what they had down South. While we bemoan Jim Crow as a Southernism, the North itself had equal "rules and laws" that had as great an impact in segregation as any other.
As to the slaves - they were still not citizens in the true unfettered sense of the word. They had citizenship in the collective sense, ie they could join the military or serve some other purpose as and when the nation required a purpose to be served. But the application of "law" to the freed black was little better than what they had down South. While we bemoan Jim Crow as a Southernism, the North itself had equal "rules and laws" that had as great an impact in segregation as any other.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google