Civil War... "Setting the Record Straight" V

[FastPonyGT]

No. The greedy Northern gov't was moving to a major centralized government that now makes us all slaves. To the tune of a 15 trillion debt and we ain't seen nothing yet. That is why.

[HopeForPeaceNow]

The North was moving AWAY from slavery in 1860.

The South was making slavery the cornerstone of it's government.

That's why.

[unitasetmagus]

Please dude, make your vids longer, i can't follow them properly, but i would like to.

[SouthernBoy4life1]

Actually at the time of the civil war only 10% of the South owned slaves.

[eflint1]

Let me give another example. I hate abortion. Abortion dehumanizes unborn children like slavery did to blacks. Yet, if a foreign power invaded America over purely economic issues, and then decided to end abortion here, do you think I'd be happy? NO! I'd still fight for America even if it meant the preservation of an injustice I despise. This is why I side with the South. It was not worth overthrowing the Constitution and government as the Founders wished it just to end an injustice.

[Rockroi]

But the North was not "foreign." There is no right to secede from the Union in the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers and "James Madison" by Ralph Ketcham that make great arguments that the South was living in an "ignorance is bliss" world where they convinced themselves that they could get out of the Union whenever they wanted.

It was simply a dream; there is no inherent right to secede; it is not "retained" by the states. Madison et al knew that going in.

[eflint1]

Nor is there any provision in the Constitution prohibiting secession. The Federalists papers make it clear that the States retain their sovereignty upon entering the Union. If a State can't secede,then it is not sovereign. Again I remind you that Lincoln denied that the States EVER were sovereign. This was one of the main factors that led the more moderate upper South States to secede,plus his calling for troops. Had he not done this, the upper South probably would have stayed with the Union.

[eflint1]

The CSA was an independent, sovereign nation. Therefore, the U.S. troops to them were foreigners.

[eflint1]

Rockroi, let me make something clear. I'm not defending the South as much as I'm defending the right for a State to secede. The South and North were both wrong to have EVER owned slaves. But the Northern newspaper editorials made it clear they were fighting for their own economic interests, the Constitution be damned! Even with their errors, the South was RIGHT in their interpretation of the Constitution. The only good thing that came out of that war was the abolition of slavery.

[Rockroi]

When the war started, the North was in turmoil. They knew why the South seceded (slavery). Hence, there was considerable trouble with Northern White people dying for Southern Black people. It was a very hard war to fight for just "Union" and "Country." However, once Lincoln (brilliantly, mind you) issued the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil War became a crusade to free black people from unjust bondage. War was over in a year and a half after that. South never stood a chance at that point

[eflint1]

Actually, the emancipation proclamation almost destroyed the Union cause. There were race riots in major northern cities and desertions in the Union army skyrocketed because, as THEY put it, the soldiers did not want to "fight to free niggers". The North ws just as racist as the South.

[Rockroi]

3) Virginia was the first to "try" to stop slavery? Than why didn't they stop it? Pass a law, boom, done! NOPE, not Virginia. Thus, while there may have been some nice quotes and some "I hate slavery" talk, there was NEVER any action. Much like Jefferson and Washington, they may have said they hated slavery, but never enough to ever do anything about it.

[Rockroi]

??? Are we really going to pretend that the largest beneficiaries of slavery was NOT the agrarian South? Their entire economy was based on forced, free labor. To say that anyone benefited more from slavery than a Southern plantation owner is just pure ignorance of the facts.

Further, the Civil War was fought because the South did not want to give up their way of life... and their way of life was propped up by slaves. Its really gross ignorance to believe otherwise.

[Luigi84289]

funded by the north. Read your history. The north was the seat of american slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries. School makes it out like american history starts in 1830. New England was a naval community and responsible for spreading slavery all over the western hemisphere not just the US for cash. Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize it. Virginia the first to try and stop it. This is the cold hard truth. south's navy was nonexistent. It's why we were blockaded.

[eflint1]

The war was fought because the North invaded, PERIOD. Everything else is scenery. Bottom line....the South had the right to secede, even if it was to "defend slavery" (which I don't believe was the main reason BTW). Slavery wouldn't have lasted 20 years even if the South won.

[Rockroi]

1) The North benefited from Slavery, but not nearly to the extent the South did. Not by a long shot. The entire Southern way of life was propped up by Slavery to the point that it was almost ruined without it.

2) Massachusetts was the first colony to "legalize" slavery? I am really unclear on what you mean. I can say that in 1780, due to the case of Quock Wallce, slavery was made illegal in the Comm. of Mass. Thus, I have no idea what relevance your statement has.

[Rockroi]

2(cont.) MA was the first colony to legalize slavery, as we were also one of the first. Virginia had slaves for just as long as Mass, so I fail to see the relevance. Mass was also the 1st state to make slavery illegal. From the 1st census, MA consistently reported 0 slaves (In 1830, there was 1). Thus, while technically true, the fact that MA legalized slavery 1st is unavailing. MA may have been the 1st to recognize slavery, but we were also the 1st to recognize that it was wrong.

[eflint1]

I think you've confused me with someone else on this one.

[Rockroi]

4). Its utter nonsense to say that slavery would not have lasted 20 years if the South won.

US Slave population, 1790: 700K

US Slave Population, 1860: 4 Million.

Slave population doubled twice between 1790 and 1860. The slave population increased every census year from 1790 to 1860. Every year, and at times faster than the white population in slave holding states. Therefore, on what basis could ANYONE say it would be gone in 20 years?

[eflint1]

Because of automation,and threats of trade sanctions from Europe, the CSA would have had to free the slaves. In fact, the plans were already being drawn up during the war.

[Rockroi]

Plans were being drawn up? Revisionist history at its finest. There was never a single solitary attempt by the CSA or any of its members to do away with slavery. They did not even arm slaves until it was far too late. This is simply wishful, after-the-fact thinking that tries to turn all that was wrong with the CSA right.

[Rockroi]

(Cont.)

Would Automation have ended slavery? Absolutely not. The CSA was fixated on Mexico and Cuba and would have assuredly invaded. Slavery was going to play a major roll in the South.

However, this entire line of discussion misses the point; it attempts to dodge the reality that the CSA and all of its members desired to be slave holders and their system profited them. Therefore, nobody could argue that the CSA wwas against slavery. However, in "Bizzaro CSA" where the CSA won we can ...

[Rockroi]

(Cont).

...all play "Make Believe" ad say that the CSA would have done away with slavery; that England and France would slap on trade embargoes (interesting because they had never done so in the past due to slavery and were still huge beneficiaries of colonial labor); that it was a dyuing institution (despite the fact that the slave population had grown 550% in 80 years).

History and facts beguiles your wonderland where the "South" was fighting for something besides slavery.

[Rockroi]

None of that was true; slavery was not declining; England and France could not have cared less where there cotton came from; there was plenty of land West and South to be populated by slaves.

And the North "invaded" the South? How does a country invade itself? The South wanted to be their own nation; to have all the slaves they wanted, and did not want Washington telling them what to do. The North believing in stable governments could not allow that. Then there was war.

[eflint1]

BTW the book I mentioned is NOT pro-confederate. But it does make a good case that the CSA would have been forced to free the slaves eventually.

[eflint1]

The slave poulation grew because slaves were having sex. I'm not sure why you brought this up.

[Rockroi]

As far as the slave population growing, I brought this up because if slavery was truly on the decline, surely the numbers of slaves would reflect this. Surely if it was a dying institution, I would be able to see that slaves were not needed and Gradual Emancipation (Greatest. Myth. Ever.) taking hold. Nope. Slaves were in demand; hence, there was a large supply. The most valuable commodity in America was a slave. This is all proof that slavery was still a thriving institution in 1860.

[eflint1]

The war was fought because the North invaded. Had the North not invaded, there would have been no war.

[rebelstang]

Tis a Good Start!

Deo Vindice!

[verxintRising]

Civil War was not about slavery..

Besides the slavery moved to the south by the time the War happened.

Also the international slave trade involving America was abolished. Slave traders were never considered nice people either, but if the South thought slavery was wrong they could have just not gotten slaves.

[Luigi84289]

Slavery was a strawman so lincoln could fuel his conquest. We're all enslaved to the government now. Non of us our truly free. Washington decides what freedoms we get now. Look at all the unconstitutionall illegal acts they commit everyday. These are ordinary men and women no different than you or me why should they be above the law? This was always the goal to centralize the government and take away the people's voice. The constitution is just a peace of paper without the people to enforce it.

[ConfederateBrave]

Another great video!

[tikijane]

Obviously the north has some 'splaining to do. Much of the wealth of the New England states was built on the slave trade both in the US and the Caribbean. It's crazy. Nice job on the history lesson!