There’s No Denying That Civil War Was About Slavery

111=slave_beat_1863_peter_batonThe leaders of my own state of Mississippi, among many others, declared in unambiguous language that preserving the institution of slavery was the reason behind secession.

Via Addicting Info:

Unfortunately for those who want to rewrite history, America was pretty good at record keeping, and this holds true even in the South during their “we wanna be our own country” phase. Revisionists and those they have tricked into believing untruths can argue all they want, but the states that seceded from the Union were very clear on why they did so. This might make that whole yearly Confederate History Month seem a bit more racist. (a BIT? – ed)

In reality, there were four states in the Confederacy who decided to write their own declarations of why they were seceding from the Union. Surely the racists of today would go back in time and tell them not to do this. After all, why leave a paper trail of racism? Oh well, too bad. Here you go!

Keep reading.

22 Comments on "There’s No Denying That Civil War Was About Slavery"

  1. Haystack | Nov 4, 2013 at 9:47 pm |

    On the flip side, however, slavery wasn’t the principal reason that the North fought the Civil War. Their priority was to preserve the Union. Abolition emerged almost as more or less an afterthought; a way to lend the cause the veneer of a moral crusade. Initially, slaveholders who sided with the North were allowed to keep their slaves; those who did not had their slaves seized as “contraband property.”

    • InfvoCuernos | Nov 4, 2013 at 10:55 pm |

      Yes, and Lincoln was on record several times saying that if it meant he could preserve the Union, he would keep slavery, but the politicians-especially Jefferson Davis- had gone too far with their rhetoric and there was no backing down from outright war. Lincoln even declared at one point that he agreed that the Blacks were inferior. This is one of the reasons why you don’t see too many African Americans with the last name Lincoln-not because his family didn’t own slaves, but because they remembered that slight. The revisionist propaganda we see today is just a continuation of the crap they were selling to get the poor to fight the war. Imagine trying to justify fighting over slaves to a guy that doesn’t even own a pair of shoes. For some reason, white people all think black people don’t know all this and don’t give any thought to the civil war, but if it were me, that shit would burn me up. If I ever get this time machine running, the first thing I’m doing is going back and laying the smackdown on the founding fathers to free the slave in the bill of rights, like it should have been done in the first damn place.

    • pacific waters | Nov 5, 2013 at 12:21 pm |

      That was ostensibly the reason but the real reason was to preserve the wealth of the north and to maintain the taxs and tariffs on southern cotton.

  2. rhetorics_killer | Nov 4, 2013 at 10:53 pm |

    Anyway, all abroad racism in itself was not an issue during the 19th. Everywhere up to intellectual circles white superiority was common sense: cf. European colonization of ‘third’ world, all in the sense of bringing ‘civilization’ (i.e ‘superiority’) and christianity everywhere, especially to those who were in no way on demand. Its refinement was antisemitism, widely discussed around a drink. Human stupidity has deep rooting. Anyway now, with a bit of patience, century after century.. who knows? (Someone is warning aboard: the other side may have more expeditive routines..!)

  3. I still remember my history teacher putting together a formal Union vs. Confederacy debate in 7th grade. We were forbidden from mentioning slavery, since “it had nothing to do with the Civil War.”
    This was in Virginia and the irony is that the teacher commuted from WVA, which separated VA during the Civil War, due in part to slavery.

  4. Sure it was about slavery, but you still have to take in the context of the era. Imagine right now if Washington mandated a $30/hr minimum wage? It was about economics, not civil rights. After all, it took another hundred years for blacks to begin to gain true equality.

    • Punctuated Colon | Nov 5, 2013 at 7:06 am |

      Thats the type of thinking that made it take another hundred years. Context of the era be damned, Imagine right now if washington mandated all people in their borders to be allowed education as a right. sure it would be expensive (and therefore in your view “about economics”), but the expense is not the issue, civil rights still are. Expense is how some fascists excuse their fascist behavior in public

      • Type of thinking? I am talking about facts. And the fact is that even today, slavery is still alive and well, it’s just called welfare and minimum wage jobs. At least slaves had job. At least slave owners had to pay to feed, shelter, clothe, and even provide medical care for their labor force. Today, corporations make taxpayers pay to feed their slave labor. Yes, it is all about economics my friend.

        • Punctuated Colon | Nov 6, 2013 at 1:08 am |

          Your chosen perspective was already noted. Your hypothetical mandate irrelevant as to be quite honest, hypothetical descriptives have no place in a reasoned debate. nobody says slavery is dead, that’s not the issue. And good luck with your “Facts” unless you are a time traveler from that period in US history. Obviously you have no trouble rationalizing civil rights issues away as purely money based, others may look at the larger group of variables concerned with this issue and make more rational conclusions.

          Oh, and FTR, in a minimum wage job, your line manager is not legally allowed to beat the fuck out of you on a whim, because you aren’t his property.

          Methinks the lady doth protest a little too much…….

          • I do admit that a min wage job and true slavery are not quite the same. But neither are the times we live on. It might also be noted here that instances of abuse are overrated. Slaves were very valuable property, like an automobile today. Most people don’t go out and deliberately abuse their cars, though some do.

            The link to my factual information which supports my point of view from a historical basis was not approved. But if you Google the following phrase in quotes you should find it on several websites and blogs…. “In this piece I will be providing documentation which shows that the
            United States of America’s Constitution, as prescribed by the nation’s
            founders, no longer has direct authority, and that the nation operates
            under a declared state of martial law.”

          • Punctuated Colon | Nov 13, 2013 at 5:05 am |

            history written by the victors anyone?

      • moremisinformation | Nov 5, 2013 at 10:52 pm |

        “Imagine right now if washington mandated all people in their borders to be allowed education as a right”

        If Washington followed through with actually seeing that people got educated, it’d be great. Other than the fact that it’s ridiculous to believe that “Washington” can “mandate rights”, education and schooling (which is what the state actually “provides”) are practical antonyms.

  5. Ted Heistman | Nov 5, 2013 at 10:14 am |

    And the South lost because agrarian slave based economies didn’t create enough wealth as Industrialized Capitalism and thus the South had a less powerful War Machine.

    • marvin nubwaxer | Nov 5, 2013 at 2:10 pm |

      in other words the north made guns, the south grew cotton. it was over at the first shot.

      • emperorreagan | Nov 5, 2013 at 2:37 pm |

        The north also had far more people and by the end of the war at least, far better generals.

        To win, the south basically needed to convince either Britain (hopefully) or at least France to enter the war on their side. One of the reasons the emancipation proclamation was important was that it made entering the war unpalatable for Europe.

  6. bobbiethejean | Nov 5, 2013 at 7:22 pm |

    I love it when conservatards insist that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. “It was about states’ rights!” Yeah, states’ rights to do WHAT, eh? Jeeze. Yeah, sure, there was a lot more to it than that. A lot of whitewashing goes on in our schools concerning the Civil war. I’ll admit that but let’s face facts, slavery was a key element there. Denying that is just silly.

  7. The last slaves to be set free in America lived in New Jersey, a Union state.

  8. Ted Heistman | Nov 5, 2013 at 8:44 pm |

    Did everybody know about this:

    “Native Americans in the American Civil War composed various Native American bands, tribes, and nations. Native Americans served in both the Union and Confederate military during the American Civil War…
    …A few Native American tribes, such as the Creek and the Choctaw, were
    slaveholders and found a political and economic commonality with the
    Confederacy.The Choctaw owned nearly 6000 slaves.

  9. I speculate that it was both about slavery and states rights. Both slavery and the balance in power between the states and federal government were affected in the wake of the civil war. If you were to go back and poll people what the coming war would be about you’d probably get different answers from different people.

    • Most rebels were too poor to own slaves. Ask them why they fought. That is not to say that slavery didn’t have a role in all of it, but it was not a the core value that divided the nation as it is portrayed today. .

  10. moremisinformation | Nov 5, 2013 at 10:54 pm |

    Well, whatever the reason, I’m sure it was worth 600,000 dead people.

  11. It might also be noted here that slavery was not exclusive to black folk. In fact, white slaves were worth far less on the auction block.

Comments are closed.