What mainly caused the Civil War?

[War on Want]

Why would we be jealous of your slave system?

Northern industry wanted to capitalize it in order to dominate the southern economy for their own interest.

Capitalism > slavery

Republicanism > Plutocracy

The Gilded Age came about a great deal because of the Civil War.

Maybe but the South had absolutley no right to seceede and some good things came out of it for a while.

[SPC]

Why would we be jealous of your slave system?

Northern industry wanted to capitalize it in order to dominate the southern economy for their own interest.

Capitalism > slavery

Republicanism > Plutocracy

The Gilded Age came about a great deal because of the Civil War.

Decentralism > Centralism

The latter ideology was used by mass murders such as Hitler and Stalin.

[PBrunsel]

The role of slavery in the Civil War is vastly overrated. Fewer than 3% of Southerners owned slaves. A vast majority were Yeoman Farmers who had two thing they loved: a farm and a family. When these were threatended by Northern invasion, they fought for their homes. They fought for their way of life, a way of life that Yankee Republicans and industrialists threatened. 

The Civil War was a war was caused because the two regions of the nation were very different:

1) The North which had industry but lacked tight families and tradition.
2) The South was a close knit, agricultural community.

People so different could never get along, which is why war came. It would have happened whether or not there were slaves. The crisis over tariffs in the 1830s and state's rights were far more responsible for the war than 100,000 or so slaves in the South. 

Simply to cement my point further there is a story I'm very fond of. In 1862, soon after the Battle of Shiloh, a Union brigade surrounded a single ragged Confederate solider. This Confederate was a middle aged, Yeoman farmer who couldn't have cared much about slavery or the Constitution. "What are you fighting for reb?" the Union commander asked. "I'm fighting 'cause your down here," was the response. That was the Southern spirit, keep out of our homes. The South saw the North ever since the tariff probelms in the 1830s as a group of people who wanted to destroy their agricultural, close knit way of life and replace it with cold city life.

In conclusion, slavery was not the Southern way of life. Slavery was just a part of a larger North-South divide: differing ways of life. The South's Yeoman Farmers were going to protect their homes, farms, families and property from Northern aggression, and the war came.   

 

[War on Want]

The role of slavery in the Civil War is vastly overrated. Fewer than 3% of Southerners owned slaves. A vast majority were Yeoman Farmers who had two thing they loved: a farm and a family. When these were threshed by Northern invasion, they fought for their homes. They fought for their way of life, a way of life that Yankee Republicans and industrialists threatened. 

The Civil War was a war was caused because the two regions of the nation were very different:

1) The North which had industry but lacked tight families and tradition.
2) The South was a close knit, agricultural community.

People so different could never get along, which is why war came. It would have happened whether or not there were slaves. The crisis over tariffs in the 1830s and state's rights were far more responsible for the war than 100,000 or so slaves in the South. 

Simply to cement my point further there is a story I'm very fond of. In 1862, soon after the Battle of Shiloh, a Union brigade surrounded a single ragged Confederate solider. This Confederate was a middle aged, Yeoman farmer who couldn't have cared much about slavery or the Constitution. "What are you fighting for reb?" the Union commander asked. "I'm fighting 'cause your down here," was the response. That was the Southern spirit, keep out of our homes. The South saw the North ever since the tariff probelms in the 1830s as a group of people who wanted to destroy their agricultural, close knit way of life and replace it with cold city life.

In conclusion, slavery was not the Southern way of life. Slavery was just a part of a larger North-South divide: differing ways of life. The South's Yeoman Farmers were going to protect their homes, farms, families and property from Northern aggression, and the war came.   

 

Interesting. I largely agree with you that that is why southerners fought and joined regiments and such but I meant the government's views and why the state government seceeded.

[PBrunsel]

Interesting. I largely agree with you that that is why southerners fought and joined regiments and such but I meant the government's views and why the state government seceded.

Evil Mexican Dictator,

You are a man of history, so I would assume you know the lead up to the Civil War very well. Such Northern aggression as high tariffs and refusals to follow national laws which benefited the South (ala Kansas-Nebraska Act) really alienated most Southerners, especially the Yeoman Farmer. Raised with a love of Washington and Jefferson, most Yeoman Farmers saw the Tariff of Abominations, the want to take farmland for railroads and a refusal of the North to follow national laws led Southern government to support secession. In my opinion the North was far more responsible for the Civil War then the South, for the reasons stated above. In short, the reason's that the farmer's fought were really the same reason's that the states seceded. Slavery had nothing to do with it in reality. 

[SPC]

The role of slavery in the Civil War is vastly overrated. Fewer than 3% of Southerners owned slaves. A vast majority were Yeoman Farmers who had two thing they loved: a farm and a family. When these were threshed by Northern invasion, they fought for their homes. They fought for their way of life, a way of life that Yankee Republicans and industrialists threatened. 

The Civil War was a war was caused because the two regions of the nation were very different:

1) The North which had industry but lacked tight families and tradition.
2) The South was a close knit, agricultural community.

People so different could never get along, which is why war came. It would have happened whether or not there were slaves. The crisis over tariffs in the 1830s and state's rights were far more responsible for the war than 100,000 or so slaves in the South. 

Simply to cement my point further there is a story I'm very fond of. In 1862, soon after the Battle of Shiloh, a Union brigade surrounded a single ragged Confederate solider. This Confederate was a middle aged, Yeoman farmer who couldn't have cared much about slavery or the Constitution. "What are you fighting for reb?" the Union commander asked. "I'm fighting 'cause your down here," was the response. That was the Southern spirit, keep out of our homes. The South saw the North ever since the tariff probelms in the 1830s as a group of people who wanted to destroy their agricultural, close knit way of life and replace it with cold city life.

In conclusion, slavery was not the Southern way of life. Slavery was just a part of a larger North-South divide: differing ways of life. The South's Yeoman Farmers were going to protect their homes, farms, families and property from Northern aggression, and the war came.   

 

Interesting. I largely agree with you that that is why southerners fought and joined regiments and such but I meant the government's views and why the state government seceeded.

If the war was to end slavery, then how come every other nation in the world ended slavery peacefully?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The role of slavery in the Civil War is vastly overrated. Fewer than 3% of Southerners owned slaves. A vast majority were Yeoman Farmers who had two thing they loved: a farm and a family. When these were threshed by Northern invasion, they fought for their homes. They fought for their way of life, a way of life that Yankee Republicans and industrialists threatened. 

The Civil War was a war was caused because the two regions of the nation were very different:

1) The North which had industry but lacked tight families and tradition.
2) The South was a close knit, agricultural community.

People so different could never get along, which is why war came. It would have happened whether or not there were slaves. The crisis over tariffs in the 1830s and state's rights were far more responsible for the war than 100,000 or so slaves in the South. 

Simply to cement my point further there is a story I'm very fond of. In 1862, soon after the Battle of Shiloh, a Union brigade surrounded a single ragged Confederate solider. This Confederate was a middle aged, Yeoman farmer who couldn't have cared much about slavery or the Constitution. "What are you fighting for reb?" the Union commander asked. "I'm fighting 'cause your down here," was the response. That was the Southern spirit, keep out of our homes. The South saw the North ever since the tariff probelms in the 1830s as a group of people who wanted to destroy their agricultural, close knit way of life and replace it with cold city life.

In conclusion, slavery was not the Southern way of life. Slavery was just a part of a larger North-South divide: differing ways of life. The South's Yeoman Farmers were going to protect their homes, farms, families and property from Northern aggression, and the war came.   

 

Interesting. I largely agree with you that that is why southerners fought and joined regiments and such but I meant the government's views and why the state government seceeded.

If the war was to end slavery, then how come every other nation in the world ended slavery peacefully?

They didn't have one pigheaded region that was dead set on defending the indefensible.  That said, I don't think slavery was the only cause, either, but it was an important one.

[Person Man]

I caused the Civil War.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I caused the Civil War.

YOU BASTARD!

[??????????]

The Civil War had many causes... but one catalyst.

Due to the bloody-minded attitude of the Sthn states - they did without the technological advancements that made the North so much economically stronger. They found themselves in a situation where they had nothing but cotton, and could not survive without slavery.

There's a great saying about the Confederacy and State's rights... "died of a theory".

Actually, tax revenues from the south were much higher then the north. The south was paying the largest majority of the federal tax bill and getting very little in return. The idea that slavery solely revolved around the south is fiction and the proponents of that lie are those who want to sell Yankee propaganda. Northerners, especially Mass. and NY, were raking in huge amounts of profits from slave trading, etc. The belief that abolition was popular in the Northeast is complete bunk and the only ones who even teach that are the liars in the public screwl system.

That's a lie.  By the time the Civil War started the only Northern states with slaves were New Jersey and Delaware with a combined 1,816 slaves.  Meanwhile the entire slave population of the United States was approaching 4 million.  Also, slave trading was based nearly exclusively in Virginia and the Carolinas, with a little expansion to Kentucky and Tennessee at certain points.  Let's also not forget that both "President" Davis and "Vice President" Stephens stated themselves that the war was caused by slavery.  And if by "tax revenues" you mean tariff revenues, then you are correct in your tax assertion.  Not to mention that the infrastructure improvements in the South paid for by the federal government seem to be a fair trade for the moderately higher impact of tariffs on the region.  The claimed benefit to the North from slavery is a bit of a stretch as well.  The United States' benefiting as a whole from the cotton trade that relied on slavery does not exactly imply that the Northern states were exclusively "raking in huge amounts of profits."  In fact, without the immense exporting capacity of the North, the South's cotton industry wouldn't do much good.

No, it's the truth. Most of the very wealthy in Boston and New York made their fortunes on the trade and sale of African slaves. That's an undeniable fact. I don't even think the brainwashing liars in the public school system deny that fact anymore.

[War on Want]

The Civil War had many causes... but one catalyst.

Due to the bloody-minded attitude of the Sthn states - they did without the technological advancements that made the North so much economically stronger. They found themselves in a situation where they had nothing but cotton, and could not survive without slavery.

There's a great saying about the Confederacy and State's rights... "died of a theory".

Actually, tax revenues from the south were much higher then the north. The south was paying the largest majority of the federal tax bill and getting very little in return. The idea that slavery solely revolved around the south is fiction and the proponents of that lie are those who want to sell Yankee propaganda. Northerners, especially Mass. and NY, were raking in huge amounts of profits from slave trading, etc. The belief that abolition was popular in the Northeast is complete bunk and the only ones who even teach that are the liars in the public screwl system.

That's a lie.  By the time the Civil War started the only Northern states with slaves were New Jersey and Delaware with a combined 1,816 slaves.  Meanwhile the entire slave population of the United States was approaching 4 million.  Also, slave trading was based nearly exclusively in Virginia and the Carolinas, with a little expansion to Kentucky and Tennessee at certain points.  Let's also not forget that both "President" Davis and "Vice President" Stephens stated themselves that the war was caused by slavery.  And if by "tax revenues" you mean tariff revenues, then you are correct in your tax assertion.  Not to mention that the infrastructure improvements in the South paid for by the federal government seem to be a fair trade for the moderately higher impact of tariffs on the region.  The claimed benefit to the North from slavery is a bit of a stretch as well.  The United States' benefiting as a whole from the cotton trade that relied on slavery does not exactly imply that the Northern states were exclusively "raking in huge amounts of profits."  In fact, without the immense exporting capacity of the North, the South's cotton industry wouldn't do much good.

No, it's the truth. Most of the very wealthy in Boston and New York made their fortunes on the trade and sale of African slaves. That's an undeniable fact. I don't even think the brainwashing liars in the public school system deny that fact anymore.

Uhhhhhh you know the slave trade was banned in the 1808 right and that the Civil War started in 1860, 52 years later when many of the wealthy who had made profits off of it were dead? So many families got wealthy off of the slave trade, but we had a lassiez faire economic system(which I know you like), so their wealth was passed down to other generations who might not admire why they have it but they won't give it away.
Also to add on to this, you do realise that passing the blame onto other wealthy northerners is very ignorant as by this time they already had an industralised economy, while the south was still very agrarian(one of the causes of the civil war I am sure you know). The north really has no guilt dealing with slavery, besides Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware and two of those states were/are de facto southern states.

[DownWithTheLeft]

LOL @ EMD thinking that the slave trade ended in 1808.  EMD do you also think drug use stopped in the 1980s or drinking during Prohibition?

[War on Want]

LOL @ EMD thinking that the slave trade ended in 1808.  EMD do you also think drug use stopped in the 1980s or drinking during Prohibition?

No but it was relativley non-existent because it as punishable by DEATH. It isn't a little slap on the wrist like drugs(like it should be), it is DEATH.

[??????????]

So, um if it was "illegal" I beg you to tell me how Grant owned slaves right up until the passage of the 13th amendment. Plus, slave importation was illegalized, not slave trade within the United states. On top of that the whole black market system came into play as well.

[War on Want]

So, um if it was "illegal" I beg you to tell me how Grant owned slaves right up until the passage of the 13th amendment. Plus, slave importation was illegalized, not slave trade within the United states. On top of that the whole black market system came into play as well.

Yes I know but it was banned in the North so these businessmen couldn't own slaves in the first place or really participate without being in the black market system.
Also lol Grant freeded all of his father's slaves and also, because I am a Christian, I do not fault him if he did any misdeeds with his father's slaves because in his memoirs he wrote this and looked like he repented:
 "The (South) was burdened with an institution abhorrent to all civilized people not brought up under it, and one which degraded labor, kept it in ignorance and enervated the governing class...  Soon the slaves would have outnumbered the masters, and, not being in sympathy with them, would have risen in their might and exterminated them.  The war was expensive to the South, as well as to the North, both in blood and treasure, but it was worth all it cost."

[12th Doctor]

Why would we be jealous of your slave system?

Northern industry wanted to capitalize it in order to dominate the southern economy for their own interest.

Capitalism > slavery

Republicanism > Plutocracy

The Gilded Age came about a great deal because of the Civil War.

Part of the reason federal spending was so lax in the South was because the South refused to adopt railroads, and instead remained committed to a doomed canal system.  It wasn't Plutocracy, it was the outright rejection of progress by the South.  Had they modernized, they wouldn't have felt the sting.

[??????????]

So, um if it was "illegal" I beg you to tell me how Grant owned slaves right up until the passage of the 13th amendment. Plus, slave importation was illegalized, not slave trade within the United states. On top of that the whole black market system came into play as well.

The shrinking arguments are amusing but beside the point.  I'll humor these questions anyway, since they are easily debunked.  The internal trading of slaves was based, as I said, in Virginia and the Carolinas, and to a point Kentucky and Tennessee.  Back in that time it would have been a ridiculous notion for a Boston man to own slaves in Tennessee and run his trading business from his home in Boston.  It's just a foolish concept in so many ways.  Also, the intense anti-slavery sentiment of the North, especially in New England, made the already minimal black market almost non-existent as it pertained to slaves.  So the idea that the only thing bringing in money to Boston's big wigs was slavery is just nonsense.

Nothing left worth arguing. We aren't going to agree on anything and your cocky ego will just continue to grow. Then you'll just continue to spew your ancient fictional "North was morally superior" trash.

[??????????]

The "truth" you spout is more like a proven lie. Keep on believing that your side was "right" and continue to cover up the rape, murder and destruction your people waged on the south. The facts are that many northerners made their fortunes off the slave trade and covered up their sins with the sham called "abolition". The fact is your side raped, pillaged and murdered citizens of an independent nation. The fact is your side, the lying federal government, had its filthy president throw innocent civilians in jail for speaking out against northern aggression. The only "justification" that your side could come up with was "maintaining the union" which only 30 years before the start of the war half of your states wanted to separate from.

[War on Want]

The "truth" you spout is more like a proven lie. Keep on believing that your side was "right" and continue to cover up the rape, murder and destruction your people waged on the south. The facts are that many northerners made their fortunes off the slave trade and covered up their sins with the sham called "abolition". The fact is your side raped, pillaged and murdered citizens of an independent nation. The fact is your side, the lying federal government, had its filthy president throw innocent civilians in jail for speaking out against northern aggression. The only "justification" that your side could come up with was "maintaining the union" which only 30 years before the start of the war half of your states wanted to separate from.

Keep on spewing lies about slavery and your "indepdent nation" and how your side massacred black soldiers because they were black and how your side killed and imprisioned unionists in Texas and in many other states. Also keep on ignoring the facts by our "propaganda"and keep on living in a fairytale land where the South was great and noble when it had a whole race in bondage and seceeded because Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of slavery.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The "truth" you spout is more like a proven lie. Keep on believing that your side was "right" and continue to cover up the rape, murder and destruction your people waged on the south. The facts are that many northerners made their fortunes off the slave trade and covered up their sins with the sham called "abolition". The fact is your side raped, pillaged and murdered citizens of an independent nation. The fact is your side, the lying federal government, had its filthy president throw innocent civilians in jail for speaking out against northern aggression. The only "justification" that your side could come up with was "maintaining the union" which only 30 years before the start of the war half of your states wanted to separate from.

Keep on spewing lies about slavery and your "indepdent nation" and how your side massacred black soldiers because they were black and how your side killed and imprisioned unionists in Texas and in many other states. Also keep on ignoring the facts by our "propaganda"and keep on living in a fairytale land where the South was great and noble when it had a whole race in bondage and seceeded because Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of slavery.

The only spewing propaganda and fairytales is you.  Your posts read like a cheap 8th grade textbook (I assume thats' because that's the only history you've ever read).  The only one slaughtering anyone was Lincoln killing over 300 Native Americans, only stopping when he feared it might cause the Brits to support the South.

[War on Want]

The "truth" you spout is more like a proven lie. Keep on believing that your side was "right" and continue to cover up the rape, murder and destruction your people waged on the south. The facts are that many northerners made their fortunes off the slave trade and covered up their sins with the sham called "abolition". The fact is your side raped, pillaged and murdered citizens of an independent nation. The fact is your side, the lying federal government, had its filthy president throw innocent civilians in jail for speaking out against northern aggression. The only "justification" that your side could come up with was "maintaining the union" which only 30 years before the start of the war half of your states wanted to separate from.

Keep on spewing lies about slavery and your "indepdent nation" and how your side massacred black soldiers because they were black and how your side killed and imprisioned unionists in Texas and in many other states. Also keep on ignoring the facts by our "propaganda"and keep on living in a fairytale land where the South was great and noble when it had a whole race in bondage and seceeded because Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of slavery.

The only spewing propaganda and fairytales is you.  Your posts read like a cheap 8th grade textbook (I assume thats' because that's the only history you've ever read).  The only one slaughtering anyone was Lincoln killing over 300 Native Americans, only stopping when he feared it might cause the Brits to support the South.

Yes I do agree that was very despicable. I do not agree with how we handled indian affairs, especially during the Civil War. That is one area where I will say the South handled better than us. Also please point to where I am spewing propaganda and fairy tales. I don't see it in my post. It is true that the South did that to suspected Unionists in Texas but it is also true that the Union did that to suspected rebels. The idea is that niether sides really waged war "nobly" because warfare was changing by this time.

Also please shut up, your not funny, you don't know much and I think 90% of Atlas agrees with me. I think the only reason you like to bother me and Ben so much is because we are younger than you and know more than you. It is really getting annoying.

[DownWithTheLeft]

LOL kind of funny.  The reason I keep posting in this thread is because its really funny that Gporter knows mroe about history.  At least Ben tries to learn from his mistakes, instead you keep spewing these fables about slavery being the main cause of the Civil War and Lincoln being a hero.  Please, once you graduate third grade, take the summer and learn about American history.  You seriously have no idea what in the world you are talking about.  You also have taken your usual step of backtracking and taking both sides to try and say that you are right.  Again, its not hard to win an argument when your on both sides of the issue, just hard to win an election.

[War on Want]

LOL kind of funny.  The reason I keep posting in this thread is because its really funny that Gporter knows mroe about history.  At least Ben tries to learn from his mistakes, instead you keep spewing these fables about slavery being the main cause of the Civil War and Lincoln being a hero.  Please, once you graduate third grade, take the summer and learn about American history.  You seriously have no idea what in the world you are talking about.  You also have taken your usual step of backtracking and taking both sides to try and say that you are right.  Again, its not hard to win an argument when your on both sides of the issue, just hard to win an election.

You didn't point out anything wrong with my post there, you just said I was stupid for thinking Lincoln was a hero. I don't think he is but I do think he was a decent president that had good intentions and I do think he was on the right side on the slavery issue because he wanted it to stop expanding.

[Torie]

The Civil War would never happened without the peculiar species of chattel being extant. Tariffs was just the excuse. The grand plan of the South was to secede and take over the Carribean, and maybe Mexico. Cuba was the first morsel on the agenda.

[SPC]

The Confederate states were not an independent nation as they had no right to secede in the first place.

Could you point to exactly where in the Constitution it says that states have no right to secede?