What were you taught about the Civil War?

Question

do you believe that the civil war was about slavery and nothing more??

Answer 1

Good morning, I was taught all kinds of inaccuracies until I started studying on my own. One point before some says it the war was not over slavery. Lincoln told the South (Up to his visit to City Point) they could keep their slaves in they would rejoin the Union. Since the War was not about slavery, they refused his offer.

"I was a soldier in Virginia in the campaigns of Lee and Jackson, and I declare I never met a Southern soldier who had drawn his sword to perpetuate slavery.... What he had chiefly at heart was the preservation of the supreme and sacred right of self- government.... It was a very small minority of the men who fought in the Southern armies who were financially interested in the institution of slavery." [Quote from The Gray Book, Sons of Confederate Veterans., p. 36]

. For example, one could ask tough, critical questions about the North's claim that it was fighting for freedom and for the preservation of the Union:

* How could the North claim it was fighting for freedom when it was forcing Southern slaves to fight in the Union army, even when those slaves made it clear they didn't want to leave their plantations and didn't want to fight for the North?

* How could the North claim it was fighting for freedom when four of the Northern states were slave states and when some Northern states wouldn't even allow free blacks to settle within their boundaries?

* How could the North claim it was fighting for freedom when it was trying to crush an independence movement? To put it another way, how could the North claim it was fighting for freedom when it was trying to conquer eleven states
that had left the Union in a peaceful, democratic manner, that had made every effort to establish friendly relations with the North after they had seceded, and that simply wanted to be left alone?

* How could the North claim it was justified in fighting to preserve the Union when the original Union was a voluntary compact between the states, and when the founding fathers had prohibited the federal government from using force against any of the states? Even President James Buchanan, who was
president when the Deep South states seceded, said the federal government had no authority to use force against the seceded states. How can one rightfully attempt to preserve a voluntary Union by waging war to force eleven of its members to remain against their will?

* Wasn’t the North’s use of force against the Southern states fundamentally contrary to the Declaration of Independence’s statement that governments derive their just powers "from the consent of the governed" and that people have the right to form a new government if they feel they must do so?
Most Northern states had "Black Codes" that severely discriminated against free blacks. As mentioned, some Northern states wouldn't even allow free blacks to move into their territory. Let's briefly consider the conditions in one such Northern state, Illinois, the "Land of Lincoln," a state that was commonly described as a "free state" because it had abolished slavery. As of 1845, free blacks could not settle in Illinois unless they could prove their freedom and post a $1,000 bond. If a black did have a certificate of freedom, under Illinois law "he and his family were required to meet reporting and registration procedures reminiscent of a totalitarian state," notes African-American scholar Lerone Bennett (Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, Chicago: Johnson Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 184-185). Bennett continues describing the conditions under which free blacks lived in Illinois,
The head of the family had to register all family members and provide detailed descriptions to the supervisor of the poor, who could expel the whole family at any moment. Blacks who met these requirements were under constant surveillance and could be disciplined or arrested by any White. They could not vote, sue, or testify in court. . . . With [Abraham] Lincoln's active and passive support, the state used violence to keep Blacks poor. Most trades and occupations were closed to them, and laws and customs made it difficult for them to acquire real estate. . . . As for the pursuit of happiness . . . Blacks could not play percussion instruments, and any White could apprehend any slave or servant for "riots, routs, unlawful assemblies, trespasses and seditious speeches." It was a crime for any person to permit "any slave or slaves, servant or servants or color, to the number of three or more, to assemble in his, her or their house, out house, yard or shed for the purpose of dancing or reveling, either by night or by day. . . ." (Forced Into Glory, pp. 185-186)
Incidentally, Abraham Lincoln not only supported the Illinois Black Code, but he voted to deny blacks the right to vote "and to tax Blacks to support White schools Black children couldn't, in general, attend" (Forced Into Glory, p. 186).
In 1848 Illinois adopted a new constitution that made it illegal for blacks to settle in the state. It, like the previous statute, also prohibited them from voting and from serving in the militia. In 1853, the state legislature made it a crime, punishable by fine, for a black to settle in the state.

“Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy, that our youths will be taught by Northern school teachers; learn from Northern school books THEIR version of the war”.



God Bless You and The Southern People

Answer 2

No, its wasn't just about slavery. "To Save the Union" was a primary point in the north, and the south preferred "states rights".
There were also "draft riots" in the north, especially in Boston and New York City - so the war wasn't as popular in some parts of the north as some would have you believe. West Virginia came about because the western counties of Virginia refused to succeed from the union. The civil war had many complex social and political issues.

Answer 3

when Lincoln brought " freeing the slaves issue " into the war efforts there were many Northern soldiers who were unhappy with this situation as their main goal was to preserve the union and not free the slaves.

there were many issues to complex to go into here but another issue was states rights vs federal control. the union felt the federal government should have the stronger power where southern states felt the states should have more control.

personally feel the closer the government is to the people the stronger the control should be. this seems logical to my reasoning and therefore if the Civil War were to be fought today would fight for the South.

as an aside not all Southerners fought for the south and not all northerners fought for the union. there were individuals who banded together and headed to the area of the country to fight for the side they felt was right.

Answer 4

Not at all. From what little I know, I do not think the war was directly due to slavery. A friend who knows history recommended A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

Answer 5

We were taught about how it started with Charles I's conflict with Parliament.
Hah! More than one Civil War in the World you know! Every country calls their Civil War the Civil War.

Answer 6

If the authorities maintains to push through thoroughly corrupt legislations and agendas, in the journey that they forget with reference to the choose of the individuals, if the business device maintains to worsen, if freedom, liberty and threat proceed to decline... Poverty, pastime losses, larger taxes and compelled compliance are sturdy motivators. there are literally 1000's of offended hurting those who're heavily gazing the movements of our authorities and their elite controlling corrupting hobbies. The pollboxes received't be adequate for those human beings if issues get a lot worse. human beings are waking as a lot as authentic nightmares and losses all the end results of authorities and company corruption, damaging agendas which have pushed our united states of america and economic device over the sting and right into a loose-fall. How a lot more desirable can human beings take? i think we are going to locate out quickly adequate. Pray that violent insurrection does not happen, neither is critical, i do not opt for to imagine what which will seem as if, and would basically desire it continues to be that way. This excerpt is from an internet site that I respect and that i consider maximum of its contributors ,there are various reviews on Americas destiny.I dont have the reply, yet i recognize this...i visit face and strive against for what i be counted on,i visit guard my relatives and my property.i respect this united states of america yet i'm ashamed of our corrupt authorities and its politically self earnings established regulations.I alongside with 1000's of thousands of others have had adequate.sure that's going to likely be between the states that choose the structure, the republic, and nationwide sovereignty, and the states that choose globalism, open borders, and socialism. I actually have already chosen which aspect i visit guard..we are prepared for any eventuality.

Answer 7

Not only slavery, but individual state rights. The south wanted power to govern there own states and to abide by certain federal laws, the north however wanted to have a strong national goverment with decreased state rights.

Answer 8

Slavery was the excuse....northern greed was the reason.
Americans don't like to admit that, but us foreigners see the real issues.