Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[Hancock the Superb]

Now I live in the west, so we might be generally more apathetic about slavery and the war than the rest of you folks...

But whenever I travel in the Deep South, especially in small towns, I always feel like a foreigner. I feel like I don't belong there, in my own country!

One of my professors told an interesting story about driving through the Alabama with Minnesota license plates; he was not served at any restaurant in small towns, and pulled over by three cops in an hour for exceeding the speed limit by 1 mph. Now I'm not saying everyone is like that, but for us West Coasties, that treatment is rubbish. I feel that in the west, the majority of the people are treated as people, not Hispanics (except maybe in California), or Asians, or East Coasters, or Texans. Evidently, some resentment still lies among the southerners, as depicted above.

Now I'm not going to say that just the south is wrong. Sure, they seem to be rather aggressive in asserting their goodwill and attack their northern neighbors. But the north undoubtedly did not have the blank check of good. Racism in the north was prevalent, and the reason why Lincoln believed he should fight the war was not because of slavery.

Again, I believe that the root of the Civil War is in attempting to control tarrifs in Congress, not over states-rights or slavery (as mentioned in my above post).

Finally, why rail upon Sherman? Several million civilians were killed and extensive property damaged in World War One, yet I don't here any calls for "civilized" warfare there. No one complains about our dropping of death over Hirashima. If it is what you need to do to win, you do it, just like we murder off our divisions in this game to win the battle. If you really cared about human suffering, you wouldn't even be on this forum.

I think I've contributed 4 cents now...

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Armchair General wrote:

As for the continental empire, I assure you Bragg, it is not rubbish. Even in the 'Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War' (AKA, The Book That Drools Over the Confederacy)the author mentions the Confederacy's desires to gain Cuba.

Lost Cause mythology prefers to overlook such indelicate matters. But again, let's go to the source, the patron saint of the revisionists, Jefferson Davis.

At the 1856 commercial convention a delegate from Texas proposed a toast that was drunk with enthusiam: "To the Southern republic bounded by the Mason Dixon line and on the south by the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, including Cuba and all other lands on our southern shore."

This version of Manifest Destiny was not new in 1856. Eight years earlier, just after the Senate had approved the treaty acquiring California and New Mexico, President Polk had outlined his next goal: "I am decidedly in favor of purchasing Cuba & making it one of our States of [the] Union." This idea appealed particularly to southerners as a way to expand their political power. "The Pearl of the West Indies," proclaimed one annexationist pamphlet, "with her thirteen or fifteen representatives in congress, would be a powerful auxillary to the South." Believing that the Gulf of Mexico was "a basin of water belonging to the United States," Senator Jefferson Davis declared that "Cuba must be ours" in order to "increase the number of slaveholding constituancies."

McPherson, James M. (1989). Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Bantam Books. p. 104.

[JC Edwards]

JC Edwards wrote:

Well of course slavery was NOT GOOD

That's like saying that for a car, the Yugo is NOT GOOD. You still failed to answer my question. Is slavery good or is it evil?

I stand by what I said......No. Slavery was not good ( and has nothing to do with an Automobile). As gar as being evil? No..... I wouldn't say evil. A nasty part of human history.....as it does date back thousands of years before the United States existed.

I reserve the term evil for Hitler, Stalin......and George Custer.

[Hancock the Superb]

Slavery in ancient times was far different that Southern slavery. Even the Native Americans practiced a form of slavery. The original slaves were people who had captured by soldiers on a military expedition or were social servants, who worked for a master to gain room and board (indentured servants?). Southern slavery was oppressive. Although the majority of the slaves were not owned by plantation owners, they were still a marketable asset for the poor farmers as well. I believe, especially in Roman times, slaves were given the oppurtunity to gain freedom by law (save up enough money), and Native American slaves were often assimilated into the controlling party as another member of the family. These are radically different than the concept of a slave as property which may be bought, sold, and trashed as the owner wishes.

Southern slavery dates back to the the Colonial times. Slavery dates back thousands of years.

[Braxton Bragg]

Well I hope we all feel better now we got this off our chests

I blame Norb for starting this thread ( he knew it would stir up a hornets nest )

Braxton Bragg

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Southern slavery dates back to the the Colonial times. Slavery dates back thousands of years.

I am such a dope. Since slavery existed for thousands of years, it's not so bad. It's not good, but definitely not evil. Thank you all so much for attempting to reset my moral compass. It speaks volumes.

[KG_Soldier]

Southern slavery dates back to the the Colonial times. Slavery dates back thousands of years.

I am such a dope. Since slavery existed for thousands of years, it's not so bad. It's not good, but definitely not evil. Thank you all so much for attempting to reset my moral compass. It speaks volumes.

I guess you're using the morally reprehensible definition of evil. And viewed by today's standards, no question slavery was evil. But it wasn't so cut and dry in the 1860s. To say the South was evil is misguided, in my opinion. Wrong? no doubt. Evil? sorry, no.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

KG_soldier wrote:

I guess you're using the morally reprehensible definition of evil. And viewed by today's standards, no question slavery was evil. But it wasn't so cut and dry in the 1860s. To say the South was evil is misguided, in my opinion. Wrong? no doubt. Evil? sorry, no.

Moral relativism is a very slippery slope. In the 1930's in much of the world, national socialism wasn't viewed as evil but as an inevitable response to the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was viewed as a godsend by the Germans.

[General P R Cleburne]

Dont statements like this kind of invite the "attempts at resetting the moral compass"?

If i made a statement such as the one you made regarding Good and Evil i certainly wouldnt mock anyone that pointed out it that its a way off the mark.Where does good and evil fit in with trying to incite a riot?

[Braxton Bragg]

In the 1930's in much of the world, national socialism wasn't viewed as evil but as an inevitable response to the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was viewed as a godsend by the Germans.

Well many people in Europe and some parts of the world still think he was :unsure:

Braxton Bragg