Featured Would you like this in your home?

If you believe the war was only about slavery I can see how you can come to that conclusion but you would be dreadfully wrong.

 

I think I chased you around this barn before, but here goes:
1) The Civil War was about slavery, the vicious practice of treating those with a different biological history, than those of western Europe, as inferior. Racism 101
2) I look on the CSA flag in the same light I look at a NAZI flag, both endorsed treating others not as they would like to be treated. Utterly unchristian and evil
3) One thing more, at Gettysburg, the confederate soldiers could hear the axes as the Union soldiers strengthen fortifications, and then latter in the evening could hear the Union soldiers around their campfires sing "as Christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free... no need to rewrite history.

 

History according to Van.

1) Lincoln sought ways of preserving the union even allowing slavery to continue. The sending of reinforcements to Fort Sumter rather then leaving it as requested by the town and state, triggered the start of the war. Not slavery, but states’ rights.

2) pure biased formed by your own prejudice.

3) the “Battle Hymn” was written by Julia award Howe who was very active in society reforms.

For facts here is a portion of the Georgia declaration of separation

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. (Taken from The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States)
​

The south viewed the control by the North of the Federal government from the foundational documents, as nothing but outright policy to subjugate the South.

The history of the treatment of the South prior, during and after the War of northern aggression, is proof the Southerners were right.

 

You need to restudy history.

 

God would not allow Lincoln to try compromise on slavery. God killed hundreds of thousands of US citizens because the US participated in the demonic practice of slavery whereby a black man was treated as less than human. God rightly and justly killed both men in the North and South for such heinous behavior.

Anyone attempting to run around the issue and ignore the heinous legalization of slavery is just trying to ignore the guilt this nation justly deserved and still deserves as Christians still refuse to repent.

 

Van,
Those who state that you should study or re-study history are making a very good point.

The government(s) in the USA in 1860 were run the same as they are run today, that is by big money interests. If you think that back then, as is today that the government is bowing to the will of the people then I really feel sorry for you.

In the mid 19th century, the industrial revolution in full swing, the northern factories wanted cotton but it also needed hands to run the machines to make the products. Slave labor was not well suited to that enterprise. The south was stubborn in that it resisted change and wanted a farming economy and it's biggest crop was a crop that you could not eat. Very much like Oil rich countries that get their revenue from a product they cannot eat. As the country (the USA) expanded the question always came up, free or slave state. Either way, it was big agricultural money or big industrial money and with it the associated power. The southern states could see very clearly that over time the factories would win over the farms but they intended to hold onto their power for as long as possible.

It's the same way today, the liberals want the power and the conservatives also want the power. It is not difficult to see a conflict over this political divide, both sides claiming the high moral ground. Times have not changed.

The flag that causes some here to lose their minds and has moved to the center of this discussion is called the Confederate Battle Flag. This was not the official flag that flew over government buildings in southern states 1861-1865. The actual Confederate flag, the "Stars and Bars" was too easy to confuse on the battlefield with the "Stars and Stripes" so the battle flag was developed.

Why it is that so many who have an opinion on this flag but don't know even the most fundamental facts about it is a mystery to me.

 

You clearly don't know much about Lincoln and the politics of his day.

Not to disagree with you on the morality of chattel slavery and the will of God but when in the history of mankind has there been a government or society that hasn't been influenced by Satin? There isn't one so any flag or symbol of authority should be by your logic unchristian.

Today in the USA we are killing 4000 babies in the womb a day and US tax dollars are funding thousands more a day in other countries. May I ask, without being called names, which is the greater sin?

The world has always been full of sin and will continue to be full of sin until Jesus returns. There were many voices in the confederacy what wanted to free the slaves then fire on Fort Sumter. The reason Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation was to keep Europe out of the war because Europe was getting ready to put it's support behind the confederacy. Had Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia won the battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg Maryland Sept. 17, 1862; the bloodiest day of the Civil War) France and England would have probably done so. Had that happened, the south would have probably won the war, it actually came close even without overseas intervention. Why? Because Billy Yank was not in the war to free the slaves, nor was Johnny Reb in it to preserve slavery.

Your thinking, taken to it's logical conclusion, would abolish state and local governments because you clearly do not think local/states should have any rights and you cannot imagine the locals having any autonomy, what was called in the mid 19th centuries "states rights".

 

OR..... The situation was more complex than that.

 

When A. Lincoln was elected, his policy to prevent the expansion of slavery, spelled a future where free states could out vote slave states, and so rather than give up slavery due to federal mandate, several slave states succeeded from the "Union."

They chose to turn the United States into the Dis-united States. No amount of sophistry will change this fact.

Just as the dark side says it is not about abortion (murdering babies), the dark side says it is not about slavery, but about states rights. Twaddle times two

 

I'm going to assume that you are not accusing me of sophistry, rather you are agreeing with me on Lincoln.

Lincoln put his thoughts and potential plan of action on slavery in his 1860 speech to The Cooper Union in NYC, which if you haven't read I suggest you do so now.

To me it is an interesting exercise to take the Cooper Union speech, exchange the word slavery with abortion.

 

I am saying, with clarity, that slavery caused the civil war. Anyone claiming otherwise is engaging in sophistry.

I have not read all of the recorded speeches of A. Lincoln, but as it happens I have read the Cooper Union speech. Nothing in it challenges the facts presented in post 51.

 

Since you chose not to address my post, I see no reason to run around the barn yet again.
Lots of reasons, other than slavery are given for the Civil War (1861-1865) but the facts of post 51 remain unchallenged.
Post 51:

 

Slavery was a reason for the Civil War, one of several, but it wasn't the only reason. Some historians try to argue that slavery was the one aspect of mid 19th century society that couldn't be negotiated but key phrase is "some historians".

For you to make the claim that slavery caused the civil war as in the sole cause shows that your haven't mastered high school history objectives. This is a shame as I thought you were smarter than that.

For your information, I have read extensively on the subject in general and Lincoln in particular. While I hold him in the absolute highest regard, it remains but a difficult pill for me to swallow, but in order to gain his war objectives, Lincoln exercised executive power in ways never attempted in US history and his policies were really the beginning of our now excessive federal governmental overreach. For example, prior to the civil war states might draft men into short term service, but during the civil war the first national draft was instituted. To quote the character played by Morgan Freedman in the movie Glory, "being in slavery may not be living but it's sure better than dying", which is exactly the plight of northern men drafted into the military. So intense was northern opposition to the draft, there were riots in NYC 3 weeks after the battle of Gettysburg in which Lincoln deployed federal troops fresh from the battlefield the quell the violence.

 

On a point of information/spelling, the southern states tried to secede but they did not succeed.

 

I said slavery "caused" the civil war. Full stop.
I said many reasons have been given for the war, implying many are not valid.

Our country was dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, and the civil war tested whether we could long endure. The job of the living is to see that a government of the people, for the people (including all races) and by the people shall not perish from the earth.

You can rewrite history till the cows come home, you do not need to master high school history objectives, to read his brief remarks.

EDIT: Here is part of a prior post I wrote: "I have not read all of the recorded speeches of A. Lincoln, but as it happens I have read the Cooper Union speech. Nothing in it challenges the facts presented in post 51."

My bad, upon review my memory failed me. I had not read (or at least that speech in not in my book of Lincoln's addresses and letters) the Cooper Union speech, but I have read several of A. Lincoln's addresses, and none challenge the facts posted in post 51. (I have now read it and it fully supports post 51!)

 

I think that responding to you is becoming a fools errand but allow me to bring up a small item of interest. There were many reasons for the American Civil War, the issue of slavery being but one of them. You will recall that shortly before the war, an abolitionists named John Brown seized the federal armory located in Harpers Ferry Virginia (now West Virginia), this in an effort to force an armed slave revolt. The US government responded to the seizure by dispatching Marines under to command of Colonel Robert E. Lee. Brown was tried for treason and executed for his actions. Later, Lincoln offered Lee the top position in the federal army which he refused. Lee, like many in the high ranks of the Confederacy, had distinguished themselves before the war and many including Lee were of the lineage of our countries founding fathers and/or were politicians in the national spotlight.

But none of this explains why the federal government brought arms against the several states that issued declarations of secession. Those states moved to occupy and take over federal property that was located in their states. One of the most important while not the only site was Fort Sumter SC. The war department needed to resupply the fort with food and water (the fort was still under construction at the time), the Governor of SC resisted Lincoln's request to supply the fort, finally the SC militia fired on it forcing it's surrender. One of my ancestors was dispatched by Lincoln in a last ditch effort to get the Governor of SC to allow Sumter to be resupplied, which was turned down. In strictly legal terms the state of South Carolina committed armed insurrection against the federal government. This was the reason Lincoln ordered up troops to put down the rebellion, not to bring an end to the institution of slavery. Lincoln had neither the legal authority nor the popular consensus to do that but he did have the authority to protect federal property and the lives of US service men.

Four years almost to the day after firing on Ft Sumter, the main Confederate Army in the east, R.E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, surrendered to the Union Army of the Potomac and General US Grant. By that time the economy of the states in rebellion were wrecked, cities and homes in ruins and about 650,000 American soldiers were in their graves, approx 420,000 seriously wounded, 130,000 civilians (free and slave) dead due to disease and depravation. Most of the soldiers on both sides of that war were volunteers. They were paid a monthly salary but they volunteered to serve.

Given the cost in both finances and human suffering resulting from the American Civil War it is really almost idiotic to think that all that capital was exhausted because the common man on either side of the Potomac wanted to end the institution of slavery of which many in the north had no first hand experience with, most in the south were not directly involved with and was in the process of self extinguishment anyway. It may make some feel good to think that lofty goal was the reason but it's wasn't. Slavery exists today in some places in the world and we do not see young men willing to offer up their lives to bring it to an end, now do we?