Will people in the South now agree the Civil War had to do with slavery?

I have lived most of my life in Maryland, but spent my first 10 in New Jersey. I’ve never considered myself or my area to be ‘the south’, though we are below the Mason-Dixon line and Maryland would have liked to have seceded except that it’s on the wrong side of DC and the Northern armies.

So I was pretty surprised a couple years ago when a friend asserted to me that slavery was NOT the reason for secession. I didn’t handle it well because it was so shocking. I had thought this was just a thing that some southerners believed who didn’t want to think about their ancestor being a slave-owner who fought and died defending the right to deny other people rights.

But it seems to have gone beyond that. And there is SOME complexity and grey area here. There are statements you can cherry pick to try to dance around the slavery issue. There were other issues…as there always are in war. When you go to war, you put every reason you can think of to work trying to justify it because you never know which one might appeal to a particular listener. Just look at Putin’s speech justifying the Ukraine invasion…he gave like two dozen reasons, many of which I guarantee he doesn’t care about.

The problem is that this sort of (deliberate) misunderstanding is possible because people are presented with an argument with all the context drained out of it. And absent that context, things can sound more compelling than they really are. It’s a misinformation campaign that began a few decades after the war when aging civil war veterans realized that their legacy was going to be all about slavery and they set about trying to create a mythology that would make them not seem like the bad guys. So the mythologists can cite very old quotes from actual civil war veterans.

But as you said…the ACTUAL secession statement of the states universally cited slavery as the reason for seceding above all others. The context of bleeding kansas and fugitive slave laws and the missouri compromise and the battle over incoming western states and such provide the context that ought to make clear that this secession wasn’t about a punitive trade law or the various other things that get cited.

@Entropy I grew up in Maryland and had a similar experience to you. When I lived in Tennessee in my 40’s I started to really understand how the Deep South twists the explanation of the Civil War. More shocking, I have seen some of my Maryland high school friends on facebook touting the Southern Right explanation. Shocked is putting it lightly. I would bet my high school graduating class is probably 75% Democrats and generally politically liberal.

I wonder if Haley just was trying to find an answer that she thought was politically correct.

Isn’t there an argument that the slaves did not want to be freed, that they were grateful to the plantation owners for providing them with a livelihood?

Nah. They will forget this event quite quickly. Most will straight out ignore it, or never hear of it. Some will disavow them as liberal plants. Some will make excuses that they had to backpedal to avoid getting cancelled.

Officially, in the beginning the Civil War was about states rights.
It wasn’t about slavery, officially, until Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of Jan. 1863. (Presidential decree issued Sept. 22, 1862 to take effect Jan. 1, 1863.)

It is possible that both views were true. There were slaves and slave owners in the North as well as the South. The Democrats in the South (and some in the North) felt Slavery was key to their economy. They felt that their rights as states were trying to be trampled by an out of control federal government. So from that aspect, both views are correct.

But it gets even more bizarre. The country at the time had come to an agreement that slavery in the southern states would continue to be okay and could be outlawed in the northern states. The Republican Party formed in 1850 and was staunchly against slavery…it was their main push. But they were a new party and didn’t really have any say in the government at that point. The bigger question revolved around what the status of the new territories of the US would be. Lincoln ran for the presidency in 1860 on a platform of government support of road and harbor projects and higher tariffs (import taxes) to protect American industry, and keeping slavery out of the territories. The Democrats splintered at that point and actually had two candidates. That might be why they lost that election. The Southern Democrats felt that keeping slavery out of the new territories was just a ruse to eventually outlaw it in the southern states as well. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas all voted to leave the Union. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union without war.

Here we see that the southern states, even though it was already agreed they could keep slavery alive and well, didn’t want to be part of a Union that could overrule their wishes as states. So we see again that both views are valid.

Lincoln, in response to these cessations sent reinforcements to Fort Sumter in SC. SC, not liking that attacked the fort. In response Lincoln asked for 75,000 volunteers to put down this rebellion. That made Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas realize the Union was trying to take over state rights, by force if necessary, and joined the confederacy.

Slavery was indeed a key component in the cause of the Civil War, but it was by no means the only one.

@kritiper On what basis do you state something as “Officially”? The declarations by the various states on why they were seceding all focus on preserving slavery as the reason. You cannot get more “official” than that.

“States’ rights to what, Susan?!”

Based on what @kritiper said, I did a Web search for Lincoln’s attitude toward slavery, and was a little surprised by what I found. Link. Lincoln was not initially an abolitionist and, according to the article, the primary reason for the Emancipation Proclamation was to be able to recruit escaped slaves into the Union army.

@zenvelo The true, actual history, as found in history books. There were MANY in the North who would not have gone to war if they knew that they were to fight for the freedom of slaves. Lincoln knew this. And the South didn’t like a centralized, Union government telling them what to do. So, officially, in the beginning at least, the war was about states rights.

This is an interesting question. Many people these days apply whatever they believe was going on at the time as fact and then try to apply today’s views of things to those events. Slavery was a bad practice, but was not unheard of at the time it started in this country. Most countries had some form of slavery in place. Most of the black slaves that came to this country were slaves in other countries in Africa, sold to slavers by other blacks. Horrible, horrible practice.

But by today’s standards, anyone that had anything to do with slavery is horrible. Statues of Robert E. Lee, for instance, are torn down. Yet Lee never owned slaves and felt the practice was horrible and inhumane. We have, by this time, tried to rewrite all or our history to tell a narrative that applies to today’s world.

Wars are rarely over one thing only. There is almost never just one topic that leads to war.

The CSA was fighting to preserve slavery.

Anybody who denies it is pro-slavery. Full stop.

You can be a decent good person or you can apologize for the Confederacy. Choose your side.

@ragingloli The “states’ rights” that are discussed in this context are the rights of the individual states to avoid following Federal laws in general, but specifically, the right to have slaves in spite of a federal ban on slavery.

Slavery having nothing to do with it, is indefensible.

The motivation for so many men who fought for the south, is likely very different. To me, that’s an important variable.

It’s important to remember context, as well.
Sadly. Slaves were thought of as beasts of burden. Tools even. The south used these “tools” to keep It’s massive plantations and farms functioning. The wealthy owned armies of slaves, to care for their vast estates and dealings. Outlawing Slavery would obviously change the amount of money required to run the cash crops that proliferated/funded the south.

So. To the wealthy slave owner, secession was necessary to stay in business.

Of course there is the fact that Slavery was VERY commonplace for almost all of human history. The Bible does NOT Slavery… Barbaric. Disgusting. Shameful. You pick the word. It’s still a huge part of history. Slavery is a global/humanity issue. Not something that southerners invented.

Black Africans sold rivals to European traders. The Europeans spread them to the Caribbean, and eventually to the mainland. One could easily argue that slaves of one ethnicity or another, are responsible for the bulk of the work that built almost ALL current empires.

Having lived in Charleston SC, off/on for my 43 years, I will offer MY opinion on the matter.

I KNOW the wealthy white men started it, and why.
The first shot was fired in my harbor. I worked on the Fort Sumter tour boats, when I was a kid. (Perspective.)

My father, and some other relatives actually told stories of their grandparents talking about the war here. The Union blockade of the Charleston harbor was a big reason the north thankfully won the war.
“The Holy City,” as it’s called because of the churches that dominate the skyline, was the biggest slave trading post on the East Coast…
So. Slavery had a lot to do with how people not even rich enough to have slaves lived here. The slave market was/is also a busy port city. Cities, and places like Charleston, are what shaped our nation. For better or worse, slavery aided the entire country. Nobody can escape that. Just not do it again.

I believe that the vast majority of people who fought for the south were poor, to average people. They didn’t own slaves. Mainly the wealthy people dud. Former senator Strom Thurman was a direct descendant of a wealthy slave owning family. He even had at least one mixed race child with a “house keeper.”

It’s absolutely impossible for me to imagine a southern man fighting for the rights of a wealthy man. It doesn’t fit the character of ANY surviving southerners that I have ever met.
“States Laws” was the reason I always heard. Yes. Slavery was one of those laws.
Southerners. If I may generalize some, don’t like being told how to do ANYTHING. They feel entitled to live however they want. “My land! My business.”
Or, “don’t tread on me.”... if you prefer.
Present southerners who are NOT bigots, and most aren’t, are still that way. The Rebel Battle flag, that is SO typically used by racists and the like, means different things to different people.
I used to see it as a symbol of uniqueness, and pride, in that vein of “don’t fuck with us.” Simultaneously loving my black, or brown friends.
When I was old enough, I realized that the flag had ties to slavery. But. The flag was around me, before I knew it’s history, and it was never in correlation with anything to do with color, or slavery.
We just don’t like Northern people. Nothing says “I’m not Northern,” like the flag.
I don’t fly it anymore. I don’t even own one.

History tells us that slavery was indeed the primary reason for starting the war. It is a shameful, and regrettably evil part of history. US history.

It’s VERY relevant to consider the fact that Lincoln had a couple hundred American Indians, at the same time he was helping craft the Emancipation Proclamation…
In other words. We cannot paint the north, as heroes of humanity. That is not the case.

There was/is a LOT of pathetic, evil, bigotry and hate in America. Every inch of it was earned with blood, or blood money.

I believe that Haley wanted to deflect that negative stigma, because for all her faults, she does love the Low Country. After Dylan Roof shot up our historic church, she was livid. She publicly stated that she wanted him “slammed against a wall.”

To specifically answer the question, I’ve NEVER heard anyone (worth listening to,) deny the role of slavery in the American Civil War. The first one.

Ironically. It will be militias training and housed in the northern latitudes of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, that will power the second Civil War. Led by a northern leader (Trump.)

I understand why this question would be asked. But. Many times, it just seems like a northern question, crafted to release THEM from THEIR role in slavery, and the state of race relations in America.

Slavery happened. Or there would be no USA.
The constitution was crafted by, and for the sole benefit of wealthy, white, land owners. That’s life. History is offensive.

@MrGrimm888 I give you a GA on that one. BUT…your last bit is only partially right. The Constitution was crafted by wealthy white land owners. However it was also that same Constitution that laid the basis for getting rid of slavery. And it should also be noted that the issue of slavery being right or wrong was around at the time the Constitution was written. Those wealthy white land owners also disagreed with each other on the topic.

So highlighting that piece shows a bit of a bias. And go back to read the Constitution. There are many, many parts in there that make all men equal…equal in opportunities, not results. There are basically no parts that are only for rich white people. In fact there are NO parts only for rich white people.

@MrGrimm888 People vote against their best interests, you don’t think they go to war for wrongheaded reasons too? Plus, the poor white Southerners were still mostly racist at the time of the war, so they probably didn’t care if Black people were slaves.

I do agree a lot of Southerners the last 50 years saw the confederate flag as simply a symbol of Southern pride. Part of that included (still includes) not liking northerners, which included prejudices about northerners, and not liking central government.

Hailey’s family doesn’t have Southern roots back five generations. She doesn’t have attachment to the confederate flag. She was just reciting what she knows Republican Southerners and Libertarians around the country prefer to hear. State’s rights and smaller government.

@seawulf575 It was the “interpretation” of lawmakers in Lincoln’s time, of the constitution that you’re talking about. To my understanding, most people think they NEVER meant to include others when using terms like “all men.”
Black slaves weren’t considered “men,” at the time. Indians would have been enslaved too, but they were less cooperative (again, my understanding.)
The Irish, and several other European immigrants were considered lesser people as well.
I’m VERY pleased that it WAS interpreted that way. However. Nowhere, does it say “and black people should be freed in 100 years. Otherwise the Emancipation Proclamation would have happened before 1800 AD, or sooner…
It’s your patriotism (not a fault,) and pride that makes you want to believe that the founding fathers were men of noble and fair intent.
It’s VERY relevant to note that the Emancipation Proclamation *ONLY freed slaves in the south. Or I think they were called rebel states, or something.
It was the 13th amendment to the constitution that senate passed years later that freed ALL. So. Again. It was a US thing. This means the Northerners fought to free southerner slaves. Not all…
I would not be here to write this, if I hadn’t learned not to trust ANYONE. Especially wealthy white men.
I’m willing to bet you’re aloof enough to know I’m probably right…

@JLeslie I agree that people vote against their interests.
However. That’s different from killing your own countrymen and in some cases relatives…

I could see a lot of guys fighting because their friends or family joined up. Again, I am not saying nobody was racist. That’s STILL a problem.

So. As you also live in the south, you see what I see. Give or take.
Yes. There is a massive cultural difference between American Southerners and American Northerners.
It’s not a one way issue either. Northerners usually hate southerners. They think we’re slow and dumb, and of course racist.
Northerners need a transition period to be able to survive down here. I actually just had this conversation with a woman from NJ. It took her 50 years to acclimate fully, and not be mad at everyone.

I’d like to point out that the Revolutionary War was still fresh in many minds back then. The people were still riding the high of being rebellious, and the freedoms it brings.

The country was still VERY young, and really wasn’t even close to what we know today. I think it just made sense to some to not only be free of England, but the Northerners who didn’t share the Southerners’ ways of doing things. And so, as America itself did 100 years earlier, the south said “no more.”

I don’t agree with the reasons. I don’t support wars in almost any case. I never owned slaves, or had family that did.

Haley. I am not a big fan. But. Yeah. She just fucked up, trying to make EVERYONE happy. An impossible feat.

@MrGrimm888 In Florida we don’t run across the North and South stuff very much except way way up in North Florida and maybe parts of the panhandle.

I never include Florida when I talk about the South, and usually try to use Deep South to refer to states that still have a significant amount of lingering outwardly Southern scary stuff going on. I realize Florida is in the news a lot about DeSantis, anti LGBT, NAACP put out a travel warning, there are WS groups here live everywhere, we have that Mike Flynn compound in SW FL, and the Dominoes pizza guy developed a Catholic community down in the SW part of the state too, but I can tell you living in Florida and living in TN or NC is very different. Especially very different regarding Black people, Hispanics, and other minorities.

We liked TN a lot, but we Northerners did sometimes talk about how uncomfortable it was that the races were so separated.

I’m going to agree that Northerners also stereotype Southerners in some negative ways and make assumptions, but very quickly that melts away when one on one with an individual who shows themselves to be open minded and socially liberal. Democrat is not enough, because it was in the South that I learned there are plenty of Democrats who are social conservatives. Not to mention there are plenty of Republicans in Northern States. That’s just politics though, you mentioned assuming Southerners aren’t as smart, and slower in every way. That is a stereotype out there, and an unfair one. Things do move slower in some ways in Southern states, but we could just as easily say northeast cities people are too rushed, none of it has to do with smart or not it’s cultural. I didn’t find it effected service in a restaurant for instance, but did affect how a cashier deals with a line of customers.

A side note: I think the show Designing Women did a lot of good in promoting Southerners in a good light, and was well received all over the country. I think many sitcoms have helped to bring different cultures around our country to the masses in a fun non threatening way. I was shocked Seinfeld, The Nanny, and Everybody Loves Raymond was so universally liked. Those shows are so New York. So Jewish/Italian northeast. I’m not sure people in the South caught all of the subtle remarks, but maybe.

Another observation, I know a lot of people born and raised outside of the US, and a strong Southern dialect and accent sounds less intelligent or much harder to understand to them even though they don’t have any pre existing stereotypes. Not an average Southern accent, I am talking about extremes. It’s the same as we Americans having trouble understand very strong Scottish dialect where they swallow half their words. Poverty and illiteracy tends to result in less articulate spoken language (not always). It’s true in most countries and most languages. Northerners who listen to NJ or NY dialect full of yous guys and extreme accent hear that as less intelligent and less educated too.

@MrGrimm888 Actually the Founding Fathers debated slavery when writing the Declaration of Independence and later, the Constitution. There are several articles that can be found that talk about this very topic. It was already a point of contention in the colonies at the time of the Revolutionary War.

Slavery came to the US as part of the British Colonial expansion. Even some of the Founding Fathers that were slave owners were against the idea of slavery and felt it went against what they were trying to get rid of with British rule. Jefferson (owned hundreds of slaves) even wrote an initial draft of the Declaration of Independence that outlawed slavery. It was debated and decided they weren’t ready to take that step. Both Washington and Jefferson owned a lot of slaves, didn’t like the practice but didn’t know how to stop using the slaves. Benjamin Franklin owned a few slaves but relatively quickly got rid of them and headed up one of the first abolitionist societies in the US.

This idea did not suddenly pop up in the 1850s.

(^Had a longer answer. Got erased.)

Wulf. Sir.
Our founding fathers indeed contemplated, and debated slavery.

They were VERY deliberate in how they wrote the constitution. For obvious reasons. To cut out loopholes.

4,440.

There are 4,440 words in the original constitution. Never once, does it ONCE say all colors, of all men, women, LGBTQ + and status should be equal and free…

You’re correct. Some of them owned slaves. That’s your clue Sir.

Sadly.
Our founding fathers were EXACTLY aware of ALL of the racist, abusive, rape-filled, child abusing, kid swapping, murder, lynching, whipping, unjustices, etc. and pure evils of slavery. *They left it out on purpose.
They were wealthy white land owners, with similar friends and interests. They didn’t know how to do it without bankrupting themselves, and the country. So it took years to figure it out.

And again, it bares mention that while Lincoln was working on freeing the southern slaves, he and the American Army were pushing the last of the Indian population into “reservations.”
The ones he didn’t have flat out executed, that is…

I vehemently disagree with the notion that a bunch of wealthy white men with the power to write their own rules actually cared more about freedom of EVERY man, than their own gain. If they outlawed slavery from the get go, who knows what would have happened.
But they they didn’t.
The Bible doesn’t.
Millions of current Earthlings still practice slavery of one form, or the other. Including American. As we all pointed out in the Epstein thread, we can’t trust our people in power.

The founding fathers left out machine guns with 100 round clips, and the internet, because they weren’t invented yet.
Slavery is as old as history.
They knew bro. They didn’t care.

@JLeslie you make good points, about stereotypes.

A Jersey meathead probably is a great analogy of how northerners view certain southerners. I like that.
If you judged the guy I buy crickets from in Hell Hole Swamp, someone would not think we were even in America.

It’s 100% a cultural thing.
I agree about Florida too. Well. The part about Southern Florida having Latino influence, and further up it becomes true Floridians and Northern transplants.

I think we handle the influx of northerners quite well down here. We don’t bus them to Shelter Cities…~

Anthropology is as much to do with the Civil War as anything else.

@MrGrimm888 Sir. You make horrible arguments. You expect the Founding Fathers to put every eventuality that could ever be into words in the Constitution. Gee, they didn’t mention all colors, sexes, or sexual preferences in the Constitution. This is absolutely correct. However they did use the pronoun persons numerous times. As far as I can tell that covers all the other descriptors you mentioned, unless you are saying those you stated are not persons?

I truly suggest you go back to read the Constitution again. Actually, you need to read the Declaration of Independence as well since that really set the tone for what we were looking for in our government…the founding ideals. The Constitution was the establishment of the government, the Declaration was the vision for the country.

Article 1, Sect 2 addresses indentured servants as well as indians and slaves on how they play into representation and taxes due.

Article 1, Sect 9 has this little ditty in it: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” That sounds amazingly like they are addressing bringing slaves in. Yes, they are saying the states can still do it without Congressional approval but only until 1808. Considering this was ratified in 1788, they are only talking 20 years.

None of this says that slavery didn’t exist or that it was okay. Nor does it say it was horrible and should be banned. But it was considered when they were writing the document. So yes, they did consider it. They did write it to address many of the ills we have dealt with.

But to turn it back on you, show me one place in the Constitution where it mentions Rich White Men. It doesn’t, but you swear that is what it is so you might know something I have missed.

^Well geez. I thought it was a decent argument. You essentially agreed with me.

Accept about the rich white men part. I felt that was pretty self-explanatory. But. If you prefer your version of history, I can respect that.

The burden of proving slavery was not made illegal in the constitution is not on me…
It’s just not there.

Mentioning it is something.
But it took years. Like I said.

Luckily. Those vague words you mention, are the “loopholes” that people have been able to “interpret,” as everyone. And it has to be “interpreted,” or inferred by each reader, because in almost 5,000 words, they never say it. Knowing, I would think, how important that issue was in America, for a specific group of people (black slaves.)

I hope you aren’t misreading me hear. I’m not like hyped up, and mad or anything. Apologies if that was how I came across.

There is a misconception (I believe,) that the north just freed everyone,and all was good. But then, the evil south collectively decided that the richest people in society were worth killing and dying for. Just to keep black people enslaved.
Then the northern angels swooped in, to free an entire race!..
That’s a false narrative, “written by the winners.” That’s how history goes.
However. The patriotic, wise founding fathers thing, loses wind when you start learning about the atrocities they committed/alloted. Atrocities that benefited them.

Wulf. You missed it. The founding fathers weren’t coincidentally wealthy white land owners. This goes back to Europe, and it’s feudalism roots.

The country was founded to be many things. It’s roots, as with it’s laws originated in Christianity. It’s people from Europe.
In Christianity, there is no ancient concept that slavery is wrong. When the FFFs did their thing, they kind of had to base most of it off of other/previous governments.
As I said, I do believe they thought about trying to sinch slavery up in the original constitution, but it wasn’t realistic (AT THE TIME. IN THAT TIME.)
It took a long time, and as @JLeslie mentioned, TV shows, and actual coexistence in practice, to get us this far.

It wasn’t going to happen overnight in 1776, as the country celebrated independence, it also was a starting point to equality.

People are idiots sometimes.
Many white people (back then) were taught black people weren’t really people. Not like white people… A subspecies. Literally in some documents of that era, of which I have no link to unfortunately. But it was a pathetic truth.
Even if some FFFs wanted to free everyone, and empower everyone, it would take time. Eventually it happened. Then, our southern wealthy white men got mad at the northern wealthy white men. The rest is as old as any war.
Old men talking. Young men dying.
At one point the Union was filling it’s ranks with migrants that just stepped off boats to fight. Those people had no idea what they were fighting for. They just did what they were told.
Plenty of those southern boys were seriously probably racist pieces of excrement. The average guy may not have been fighting to keep slaves captive, but at the same time he didn’t care about black people either.

Anyways. A whole bunch of people are dead. Slavery was abolished. The Union was reunited.

I’m afraid Wulf, I know people too well. I KNOW I was fed a very varnished pro-American bunch of BS in school.
We don’t need a whip white people day. But the truth is Europeans cane and stole it.
They committed genocide. They used slaves. They took what is now America. A lot of people suffered and/or died in the process. Who suffered the least? You guessed it. The guys who always suffer the least.
The guys that profit from chaos, and misfortune.
WEALTHY
WHITE
MEN

Again. I’m not trying to be a jerk. I just call ‘em like I see ‘em. If you don’t see what I do, good. I love being wrong about humanity. More often than not however, I know people.
We are all about as much of an angel, as we’re allowed to be. The wealthier you are, the more you really are a different species.
With due respect.

Somewhat related. This is why a one state solution cannot work in Israel. It’s responsible for a lot of problems worldwide. The fact that some people view others as inferior, means they will never coexist unless they can see each other as equals. If the Israeli government made Palestinians equal, then the non-Israeli jews would be a minority in a democracy….
It’s also why the wealthy white men of today are trying to change America fast, so they won’t lose power…..

Shiites and Sunnis are the same.
Others hate the Kurt’s.
There’s a ethnic/racial reason for any hate you can think of in the ME.

Is history teaching us we need wars, to eventually be together?

@MrGrimm888 I said I agreed in part with what you stated. Except you have some glaring fallacies in there as well. You said: “It was the “interpretation” of lawmakers in Lincoln’s time, of the constitution that you’re talking about. To my understanding, most people think they NEVER meant to include others when using terms like “all men. Black slaves weren’t considered “men,” at the time. Indians would have been enslaved too, but they were less cooperative (again, my understanding.)
The Irish, and several other European immigrants were considered lesser people as well.”” Except I’ve already shown evidence they did think of all these groups. They were thrown in as “persons” throughout the Constitution. They even wrote in the Constitution how long slaves could be brought into the states without congressional approval. This was all considered. At the time of the Constitution, you have to remember that we had just fought a major war to get our independence and to set up a new country. And if you remember history, we actually had fought several wars: the French and Indian war before the American Revolution and the war of 1812 after it. It was a very contentious time in our history. The Founding Fathers did, indeed, have to make some concessions on slavery or else we would have broken up our nation before it got properly founded. That was why the 3/5 person statement was put in for establishing representation…to allow the south to take credit for the slaves. And from that aspect you are correct about rich white people being influential. But it doesn’t mean the Constitution didn’t address these things. If it hadn’t, then there couldn’t have been any “interpretation” at Lincoln’s time.

It should also be discussed that the same Constitution was “interpreted” to establish the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s kinda hard to say the Constitution was written for rich white people and yet is rife with language that points to freeing everyone and making them equal.

^Our main conflict is with the wording.

The constitution is rife with language that can be interpreted as point ts to freedom.
The Civil rights movement HAD to male the argued that “men” and “persons,” meant everyone.
It had to be proven.
Because it wasn’t written.

Let’s try another example.
The constitution does not have the word “God,” in it.

It is however, in the DOI, and almost every other document pertaining to how this country was founded and should be ruled.
It’s on our money.
“In God we trust.”
Do you think they were talking about ALL gods?
Of course not. They were talking about the Christian “God.”

To them, there was no reason to “state the obvious.”

And I don’t understand why you think discussing it, is equivalent to doing it…

The wars you mentioned are exactly what I was talking about, when I was saying the US was built with blood, and blood money.

Perhaps my points could be simplified to the point of “whataboutism.”
I’ve likely derailed the thread.
I was not trying to deflect and redirect. Just to bring up important contradictions to perception of the American Civil War.

To revert back to the original question.
The question (to me) states that the Civil War was fought over slavery. And that the south denies this. And, will southerners just admit that?
It is a MASSIVE oversimplification.
I felt it healthy to address some hypocrisy, and untruth in the framework of the question.

To me. It’s important to know that the north had slaves, during the war. They committed genocide on American Indians, at the same time they were helping another race they oppressed.
Slavery is a national shameful part of history.

The first colonies in Virginia, and later all colonies each had their own laws about slavery. It wasn’t allowed in some places.
However. By the 1620’s two English companies brought the first slaves to the US mainland to work the new land for wealthy white men profit.
Slavery was eventually legal in all 13 original colonies.

So. Slavery did not HAVE to follow European people to the new world.
They decided to make it legal. So they could make themselves richer. Because that’s what wealthy people do.

The Emancipation Proclamation would be the beginning of the end of slavery. But. It was not a wand that made everyone equal.

What ot WAS, was a last straw moment for the people who ran the south. So. They left the Union.
The war was started in Charleston SC.
There were 3 main forts here then. Ft. Moultrie, on Sullivan’s Island (overlooking the Atlantic, and the sight of some of the most important battles in the Revolutionary War.)
Ft. Moultrie guarded the Eastern side of the harbor.
On the Charleston peninsula, is “The Battery.” That covered the western side of the harbor.
And there was/is Ft. Sumpter. Ft. Sumpter is basically a fort that rises from the sea, and helped form a triangle of defense that protected the harbor.
When the south success, there were still union army members on Ft. Sumpter.
They were told to leave what was no longer their territory.
Instead an army was moved into the island fortress.
That’s when southern General Beauregard ordered to fore on it.

The initial shots, were arguably defensive. An actual war, may not have occurred if the Union didn’t start the conflict with a default footing in enemy territory.
I’m not blaming the north. Just giving context to how it started.

If there was a Mexican Fort in Texas, that would cause problems too.

Is it easier to think men joined the fight to rid the south of an enemy army, in it’s most important port, or that southerners attacked the fort to keep slavery legal?

I feel like most wars start over very simple/avoidable reasons.

Another thing Wulf. I may lack the wisdom your years give you, to have such optimism in regards to humanity.
I lost my faith in humanity years ago. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I only see the bad in people.

@MrGrimm888 Again, you are confusing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the frame work of how the government will be structured and who has what responsibilities. Mentioning God in this document wouldn’t make much sense. The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, that mentions what the vision for the country is to be mentions “God” and “Creator” both.

As for slavery entering this country, it was brought here by the British. Irish indentured servants and black slaves both came here under the rules of British laws.

And yes, talking about the issue of slavery was a necessary thing. It is how we start to change things. Discussions were made when the DoI was first written. And, again, to expect them to identify any and all portions of humanity that might, at the time or in the future, fall under the umbrella of “all men” is not a realistic expectation. You are trying to put today’s expectations onto the Founding Fathers.

^If you reread what I said, I plainly said it was not in the constitution.

At any rate.
I stumbled across some stuff on something called Mayflower 400 that is basically all about the first colonies and Jamestown. It had a lot to say on the subject.

I have NOT researched if it is an accurate source. However. It seems to be a historical society of some sort.

They talk about some privateer “The White Lion,” as being credited for bringing the first African slaves to the US mainland. I guess he captured them, raiding a Portuguese ship?...

I found it interesting, if anyone is curious.

Wulf. “You are trying to put today’s expectations onto the” FFs. I’ll give you points there.

Do you not believe your own patriotism gives you any bias? Again. Not trying to argue.

I have my own biases. I thought I let that be known when talking about stereotypes with the OP.
Maybe not.
For the record,
I have to hear about “the problem with the south,” from a LOT of vacationing/transplanted northerners. It gets old…
This question feels like more of the same.

I’m not offended by the question. I know the OP is not a shit stirrer.

I have biases for sure. However in things like this I tend to default more to facts. I disagree with slavery as a way of life and consider that a dark spot in our history. But the world was different back then. Slavery was a way of life in pretty much every country in the world. I can’t look back and say “they should have…” when that was not what the world was. Look at today’s world. Will people in 200 years look back and decry how horrible internal combustion engines are and how horrible we were for using them? If they developed technology that replaced the ICE they might. But does that mean we were horrible? No. We had technology we used in our time…just like the rest of the world. And we are working to move away from ICEs.

I look at the FFs as being forward thinking for even having the discussions about getting rid of slavery. And when it comes to the DOI or the Constitution, I think they did a great job writing it to be as useful as they did, including words like “All Men”. These documents were designed to establish a country. Not a small task. They couldn’t know what advances we would have in the future, how society would change, but they wrote it to address the basics in as direct a way as possible. They also recognized that it would need to be changed and gave directions on how that was done.

^Well said.
I have nothing further to add.

Slavery was always an issue in the Civil War, if not officially at first. Had it been, Lincoln would have had no reason to issue his Emancipation Proclamation.

“Emancipation Proclamation
Presidential decree issued 22 Sept. ‘62 to take effect 1 Jan. ‘63, freeing all slaves in those parts of the nation still in rebellion. In July ‘62 Lincoln had proposed such a move to his cabinet and read them a preliminary draft of the proclamation. Seward suggested that he wait, believing that such a dynamic change in the war’s focus (heretofore to preserve the Union and not to disrupt the South’s social fabric) would be little more than a plea for support without a military victory. The battle of Antietam, while hardly decisive, gave Lincoln that opportunity.”

-from The Civil War Dictionary by Mark M. Boatner III, Vintage Books, a division of Random House, Inc., New York

When the question in question was asked of Nikki Haley, it was about what caused the Civil War, not what it was about, not what the end result was. As I said before, if the war had been about slavery, Lincoln would not have been able to go to war for that reason.

Slavery was always an issue in the Civil War, if not officially at first.

if the war had been about slavery, Lincoln would not have been able to go to war for that reason.

The traitor states, not Lincoln, started the war and it was about slavery from the first shot. They spelled it out explicitly in their various declarations of secession. “Slave” appears 84 times. “Property”, meaning slaves, appears 16 times.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States