Time Magazine:"the REAL reason for the Civil War was to end slavery"

[Hkindiana]

1808 is from the Constitution of 1787. It is the slave import ban date compromise to appease the South.

We do agree that slavery was an issue for the South even before there was a United States of America.

True, but as per the OP, the North DID NOT fight the war to end slavery, it was to maintain the Union.

 

[PatriotPride]

i agree. this is the north. hard headed.

the fact is that the south, even if they wanted to preserve slavery had every constitutional right to leave the union for whatever reason. slavery was legal anyways, so they had no reason to leave the union over slavery alone, especially.

There you go spouting facts again. How dare you clear away the smokescreen?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

True, but as per the OP, the North DID NOT fight the war to end slavery, it was to maintain the Union.

Depends. In Bleeding Kansas, where the Civil War started, the Northerners fought against slavery, hence the appellation "Free Staters". However, in most of the North while there were abolitionists in Northern politics, they were a small fraction of the whole.

 

[riverman67]

I am not as versed in this history as some of you fellows but the books that I have read on the civil war and the people that fought in it seem to state that the beginning of the Civil War was the firing on Fort Sumter.
The fighting in MO. and KAN. came about because of the MO. compromise . Each group was trying to influence the vote on weather the state would be a Slave or non-slave state.

Most of the soldiers fighting for the South did not own slaves so I can't imagine that they would be fighting to continue that institution. They were fighting to protect their homes from an invader. During this time the state governments were much stronger than they are now and considered the powers that the federal government had to be granted to it by the States. So the states that left the Unio felt that they had the right to do so and probably did.

 

[jsharmon7]

Great thread! I just finished reading this, and I have to say my favorite part was the guys at the end who jumped in to imply that Kirk was wrong but didn't refute a single thing he said. Very convincing rebuttal. Being hard-headed doesn't make you right. Also, I'm sure folks 150 years from now will be arguing over why we went to war in Iraq too. Terrorism? Oil? Bush's revenge? WMDs? It's just not easy to nail down the exact reason for things sometimes.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Great thread! I just finished reading this, and I have to say my favorite part was the guys at the end who jumped in to imply that Kirk was wrong but didn't refute a single thing he said. Very convincing rebuttal. Being hard-headed doesn't make you right. Also, I'm sure folks 150 years from now will be arguing over why we went to war in Iraq too. Terrorism? Oil? Bush's revenge? WMDs? It's just not easy to nail down the exact reason for things sometimes.

hell im wondering why we are still in iraq right now!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

River, with respect, the Missouri Compromise was in 1820. The fighting in Kansas, "Bleeding Kansas", was a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of thirty years later.

The Southerners in Kansas fought for slavery, "the Slavers", fought the "Free Staters" to extended slavery. There was no rubbish about "states' rights" or "tariffs" issues invented after the Civil War by the Lost Causers to make the Southern Cause less evil than it was.

Southerners, regardless of whether they owned slaves or not, fought for one reason and one reason only in Kansas--slavery. The issue of slavery was as plain as the beard on John Brown's face as the K-N Act was designed to decide the issue of slavery and slavery only by popular vote. The Southerners fought the Free Staters to kill or terrorize them so the Free Staters could not vote for a free state.

I focus on Kansas as it was the beginning of the Civil War and the Lost Causers cannot pop the smokescreen of tariffs, states' right or Haliburton's weather machine or any other reason to ignore the historical record.

 

[Lewis]

We have Yankee agression today................doesn't the Federal goverment screw with We the People every day...........

 

[E5RANGER375]

Great thread! I just finished reading this, and I have to say my favorite part was the guys at the end who jumped in to imply that Kirk was wrong but didn't refute a single thing he said. Very convincing rebuttal. Being hard-headed doesn't make you right. Also, I'm sure folks 150 years from now will be arguing over why we went to war in Iraq too. Terrorism? Oil? Bush's revenge? WMDs? It's just not easy to nail down the exact reason for things sometimes.

It gets to the point where you realize your talking to the wind. so it becomes pointless. The real facts are never going to appease the general populous because the govt will make sure that never happens.

making slavery illegal through an act of congress was never going to happen at the time the civil war broke out. so to say its about slavery just isnt true. it was about sovereign states having the right to say what is acceptable in their sovereign state. even today if a state wished to proclaim sovereignty and reinstate slavery then constitutionally they are allowed to succeed and then whatever laws they pass from that point on is their own business if passed by their state legislature. thats the way its supposed to work.

im not advocating slavery im just trying to illustrate state sovereignty and the fact that a sovereign state has the right at any time to say they do not want to be bount by the federal constitution to remain part of the group of states. lincoln knew how much money the Union would lose if the southern states succeeded because they supplied the north with so much since the northern states were primarily manufacturing using products grown or produced in the south. the war was more about financial greed by the north also than it was about slavery.

 

[Hkindiana]

River, with respect, the Missouri Compromise was in 1820. The fighting in Kansas, "Bleeding Kansas", was a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of thirty years later.

The Southerners in Kansas fought for slavery, "the Slavers", fought the "Free Staters" to extended slavery. There was no rubbish about "states' rights" or "tariffs" issues invented after the Civil War by the Lost Causers to make the Southern Cause less evil than it was.

Southerners, regardless of whether they owned slaves or not, fought for one reason and one reason only in Kansas--slavery. The issue of slavery was as plain as the beard on John Brown's face as the K-N Act was designed to decide the issue of slavery and slavery only by popular vote. The Southerners fought the Free Staters to kill or terrorize them so the Free Staters could not vote for a free state.

I focus on Kansas as it was the beginning of the Civil War and the Lost Causers cannot pop the smokescreen of tariffs, states' right or Haliburton's weather machine or any other reason to ignore the historical record.

I think you are totally missing the point. YES the south wanted slavery, and yes they WERE fighting for it. HOWEVER my point is that Time magazine, and many modern history books, claim that the NORTH fought the war to end slavery, which is NOT true. Slavery was legal in the north until AFTER the war. The north fought the war to keep the south from leaving the Union, period. Lincoln himself said that if he could have maintained the Union by allowing slavery, he would have done so. The Emancipation Proclemation was given in 1863 Given the political climate of the time, do you really think the millions of soldiers would have been willing to risk their lives just to free slaves?

 

[cbseniour]

CIVIL WAR, WAR BETWEEN THE STATES

I don't think we will ever reach a consenous on this but it is great to read input and opinions from well read and historically accurate points of view rather than emotional view points.
I wonder if we could get on 60 minutes?????

 

[Kirk Freeman]

HK, yes, if TIME magazine is saying that the North went to war to "end slavery" then that is ahistorical as well as:

1. The North was attacked and had no choice but war.

2. Outside of Kansas, only a small percentage of the Union Army fought to abolish slavery. The vast majority were operating on duty and a wish to seek to stop Southern treason.

However, I believe that Northern motives are irrelevant as the proper historical focus should be on the South as they were the moving party, so to speak.

 

[E5RANGER375]

HK, yes, if TIME magazine is saying that the North went to war to "end slavery" then that is ahistorical as well as:

1. The North was attacked and had no choice but war.

2. Outside of Kansas, only a small percentage of the Union Army fought to abolish slavery. The vast majority were operating on duty and a wish to seek to stop Southern treason.

However, I believe that Northern motives are irrelevant as the proper historical focus should be on the South as they were the moving party, so to speak.

actually the north refused after being peacefully told, to leave sovereign CSA territory. the north fired the first shots without a gun. also ft. Sumter isnt even the half of it.

 

[PatriotPride]

actually the north refused after being peacefully told, to leave sovereign CSA territory. the north fired the first shots without a gun. also ft. Sumter isnt even the half of it.

Just let it go. It's like farting into the wind---no good will come of it.

 

[Compatriot G]

1808 is from the Constitution of 1787. It is the slave import ban date compromise to appease the South.

We do agree that slavery was an issue for the South even before there was a United States of America.

The date to end the African Slave Trade was not to "appease" the South alone. Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island wanted the date extended to 1808 because it was the ships from New England that were making a killing in the slave trade. Virginia was against the 1808 date. Virginia wanted to ban the importation of African slaves as soon as the Constitution was ratified.

Also, Black Codes were mentioned in somewhere along the way. Here are Indiana's from 1850:

1851 Indiana Constitution


Article II, Suffrage and Election

Section 5, Negro Suffrage. - No Negro or Mulatto shall have the right of suffrage. (Repealed in 1881)
Journal, pp. 66,121, 130, 140, 209, 727, 740, 908, 913
Debates, pp. 172, 223, 228, 245, 1712, 1737, 2068

Article XIII. - Negroes and Mulattoes

Section 1, Immigration. – No Negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the State, after adoption of this Constitution. (Repealed in 1881)
Journal, pp. 28, 32, 68, 138, 149, 244, 268, 269, 652, 752, 767, 960, 962
Debates, pp. 44, 226, 256, 432, 438, 460, 561, 572, 600, 622, 635, 664, 1568, 1787, 1816, 1931, 2075

Similar Proposed Sections​

Legislature to cause the removal of the free Negro population…
Journal, p. 155
Adopting provisions of present (1816) Constitution.
Journal, p. 144
Any free Negro coming into or refusing to leave the State shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished…
Journal, p. 272
Debates, pp. 449, 643

Section 2, Contract and Employment. – 2. All contracts made with any Negro or Mulatto coming into the State, contrary to the provisions of the foregoing section, shall be void; and any person who shall employ such Negro or Mulatto, or otherwise encourage him to remain in the State, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars. (Repealed in 1881)
Journal, pp. 138, 149, 244, 245, 248, 267, 268, 269, 652, 753, 768, 960, 962
Debates, pp. 226, 432, 438, 460, 561, 572, 600, 622, 1586, 1788, 1817, 2075

Similar Proposed Sections​

Any person who shall permit any Negro to occupy any real estate, shall forfeit such real estate to the county for use of the common schools.
Journal, pp. 272, 754
Debates, pp. 644, 1788

Section 3, Colonization. – All fines which may be collected for a violation of the provisions of this article, or any law which may hereafter be passed for the purpose of carrying the same into execution, shall be set apart and appropriated for the colonization of such Negroes and Mulattoes and their descendents, as may be in the State at the adoption of this Constitution, and may be willing to emigrate. (Repealed in 1881)
Journal, pp. 756, 770, 961, 962
Debates, pp. 1586,1792, 1798

Section 4, General Assembly to Pass Laws. – The General Assembly shall pass laws to carry out the provisions of this article. (Repealed in 1881)
Journal, pp. 68, 138, 149, 244, 268, 269, 652, 759, 776, 961, 962
Debates, pp. 226, 432, 438, 460, 561, 572, 622, 1568, 1798, 1826, 2075

Other Proposed Section Allied to this Article​

No person of color to have the right to give testimony in any case other than against persons of color.
Journal, pp. 139, 142, 164