Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Confederacy: did they fight for slavery

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Historyman View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 24-Sep-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote Historyman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Confederacy: did they fight for slavery
    Posted: 24-Sep-2012 at 20:36
we often hear this alot.. the argument..
 
Did the Confederacy States of America fight to maintain slavery or was it for souther independence...
 
we often hear many arguments from many people
 
 
whats the general concensus among historians on this debate?
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2012 at 23:11
The actual soldiers fought for states' rights and for lotalty to their states. The lesser number of rich planters fought for slavery.
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 21:26
Other soldiers simply fought because they didn't like being invaded by a government they saw as despotic. Many Southerners didn't own shoes, never mind slaves
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Salah ad-Din View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 15-Apr-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 138
  Quote Salah ad-Din Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 21:38
Well look at it this way - if it had not been for slavery, would the Southern states have seceded?  There you go:)
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528
  Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2012 at 22:32
It's been a while since I read it, but I remember a book that compared Southern newspaper editorials before the war with the editorials written after the war, and the ones before the war were all about States right's to keep slavery upon which the Southern economy depended versus States rights in general visa-a-vis the Union which was the tune after the war.

So, in my mind it was all about slavery. Not much different from the Communist position during the Vietnam. They kept telling their troops that they were fighting for Reunification of the country, and to save it from American imperialism, when in actual fact the war had been about whether or not Vietnam would be a unified country governed by the Communist Party, or a divided country like Korea with the Southern half being governed by a weak, multi-party democracy. 

Victors aren't the only ones who write history, often the losers do too, to 'right' their version of what they were fighting for.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2012 at 08:51
Originally posted by History Man

we often hear this a lot.. the argument..
 
Did the Confederacy States of America fight to maintain slavery or was it for southern independence...
 
we often hear many arguments from many people
 
 
whats the general consensus among historians on this debate?
Slavery.
And I concur.
And if you read the Journal of American History, Vol 99, Issue 2, 2012. You will discern that the vast majority of professional historians agree. And have agreed on this for a very long time.
 
The issues of contention now, and actually for some time, have devolved into identifying the specifics of causation. Not in the general reidentification or revision of an already known prime cause. For example. E. Varon's, comments-theorems reference the rationales on the specific social-economic and morale 'whys'; slavery was such an intensely divisive issue.
 
 
Not merely it's known practice. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
And that remains apt...for it's there that one separates the wheat from the chaff...the professional from the amateur. And yet even then, one might argue that in the ongoing study of the specific there is in actuality still no totality in consensus having been achieved at all.
 
 
 


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 29-Sep-2012 at 10:51
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2012 at 16:26
Originally posted by Salah ad-Din

Well look at it this way - if it had not been for slavery, would the Southern states have seceded?  There you go:)


Depends on the issue of state's rights.  It was never about slavery, but Lincoln couldn't sell a war based solely on state's rights; therefore, the issue of slavery was used to motivate and support the war to "preserve the Union" - i.e., eliminate the issue of state's rights by giving the Union power over the Southern states.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2012 at 16:28
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Originally posted by History Man

we often hear this a lot.. the argument..
 
Did the Confederacy States of America fight to maintain slavery or was it for southern independence...
 
we often hear many arguments from many people
 
 
whats the general consensus among historians on this debate?
Slavery.
And I concur.
And if you read the Journal of American History, Vol 99, Issue 2, 2012. You will discern that the vast majority of professional historians agree. And have agreed on this for a very long time.
 
The issues of contention now, and actually for some time, have devolved into identifying the specifics of causation. Not in the general reidentification or revision of an already known prime cause. For example. E. Varon's, comments-theorems reference the rationales on the specific social-economic and morale 'whys'; slavery was such an intensely divisive issue.
 
Not merely it's known practice. 
 
And that remains apt...for it's there that one separates the wheat from the chaff...the professional from the amateur. And yet even then, one might argue that in the ongoing study of the specific there is in actuality still no totality in consensus having been achieved at all.


That's nice, but you haven't identified any specifics.  Wink
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14878
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Oct-2012 at 17:17
No they fought for better credit line of IMF cause of decadent economy of themselves.When this did not happen Civil war came.North states economy was advanced&already reformed.Cheap labor force gave the South a chance for survival,so they had supported slavery.South was not competitive and lost the war.


Edited by medenaywe - 02-Oct-2012 at 17:22
Back to Top
Bobby View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 18-Sep-2012
Location: Boston, MA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 35
  Quote Bobby Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2012 at 14:44
Originally posted by Mountain Man

Originally posted by Salah ad-Din

Well look at it this way - if it had not been for slavery, would the Southern states have seceded?  There you go:)


Depends on the issue of state's rights.  It was never about slavery, but Lincoln couldn't sell a war based solely on state's rights; therefore, the issue of slavery was used to motivate and support the war to "preserve the Union" - i.e., eliminate the issue of state's rights by giving the Union power over the Southern states.
I must respectfully disagree. Slavery was a key to the differences between North and South. Basically the two regions employed two different economic systems. The plantation economies of the South, based on slave labor, and the free market economies of the North. The free market economies of the North produced far more wealth and thus a burgeoning population that held more and more sway over national policy. The South could clearly see that in a matter of time all national policy would derive from Northern interests and the Southern interests would be subordinated.
 
Slavery was thus the lynchpin if not the casus belli. To compete with the North the South would have to abandon their slave based economy, and in doing so turn their worlds upside down. Such dramatic change is always resisted, if only by inertia. The South saw themselves as being subsumed by the North and fought to maintain their independance. In the end the North remade the South in the image of the North, a process ongoing even today.
 
For me the differences between North and South were economically based, a slave based economy versus a free market economy. The fact is it wasn't a moral decision, and here we agree. Had the slave based economy been more productive than the free market economy the roles would have been reversed, and so would the results. Lincoln stated that if he could have mantained the Union without abolishing slavery he would have done so. He felt slavery would end by its own ineffectiveness. Economic realities dictated moral imperitives, as is often the case in world history.
I am wiser than he in that I do not think I know that which I do not know. - Socrates
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2012 at 15:03
Originally posted by Mountain Man

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Originally posted by History Man

we often hear this a lot.. the argument..
 
Did the Confederacy States of America fight to maintain slavery or was it for southern independence...
 
we often hear many arguments from many people
 
 
whats the general consensus among historians on this debate?
Slavery.
And I concur.
And if you read the Journal of American History, Vol 99, Issue 2, 2012. You will discern that the vast majority of professional historians agree. And have agreed on this for a very long time.
 
The issues of contention now, and actually for some time, have devolved into identifying the specifics of causation. Not in the general reidentification or revision of an already known prime cause. For example. E. Varon's, comments-theorems reference the rationales on the specific social-economic and morale 'whys'; slavery was such an intensely divisive issue.
 
Not merely it's known practice. 
 
And that remains apt...for it's there that one separates the wheat from the chaff...the professional from the amateur. And yet even then, one might argue that in the ongoing study of the specific there is in actuality still no totality in consensus having been achieved at all.


That's nice, but you haven't identified any specifics.  Wink
 
 
Specifically in answer to: 
 
 
''Did the Confederacy States of America fight to maintain slavery or was it for southern independence...
we often hear many arguments from many people
whats the general consensus among historians on this debate?''
 
 
 
Slavery.
And I concur.
Confirmation of this may be found@ ''Journal of American History, Vol 99, Issue 2, 2012. You will discern that the vast majority of professional historians agree. And have agreed on this for a very long time.''
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528
  Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2012 at 15:32
Amen to CV. And kudos for the reference link.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Amadeus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 25-Mar-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
  Quote Amadeus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Mar-2013 at 05:34
There are 2 myths that permiate any study of the War Between the States...
 
1) That it was about slavery.
 
2) That it wasn't about slavery.
 
 
~Rough life breeds men out of boys...
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Mar-2013 at 20:14
The war was fought over states rights. Most notably, the right of the inhabitants of a state, not the central government, to decide whether slavery was legal or not
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Mar-2013 at 21:56
Agreed, Nick.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2013 at 14:58
For pleasure, maybe you all should read these words by Parable Man?

http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2010/04/three-fifths.html

Ron
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Dec-2013 at 13:19
Originally posted by Salah ad-Din

Well look at it this way - if it had not been for slavery, would the Southern states have seceded?  There you go:)


Yes, because it never was about slavery - it was about States' rights.

Slavery was Lincoln's way of selling his war, since the public didn't care about States' rights enough to support a war.

Ironically, the war over States' rights continues to this day.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528
  Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Dec-2013 at 15:20
States rights was merely a silken cloak to cover the slavery issue and make it presentable. Without slavery there would have been no issue divisive enough to spark and sustain a civil war. 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14878
  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Dec-2013 at 15:29
Without slavery,it shouldn't have been created army big&strong enough to win Civil War!Lamp
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Dec-2013 at 16:45
Slavery is a non-argument, since the burgeoning Industrial Evolution was already under way and sounding the economic death knell of slavery.

Lincoln couldn't tolerate the idea of the States maintaining their sovereignty.  In that regard he was one of our worst presidents.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.