Well, it depends on who was saying “the US Civil War was not about slavery” and why they were saying it.
Yes, hostilities broke out in 1861 over the fear of what Pres. Lincoln might do in regards to slavery. There is little doubt that is the biggest reason. But of course, the South didn’t want to keep slaves simply because they thought it was fun to have them around. Their entire economic system revolved around the concept of slave labor. Without it, the South faced economic ruin. Where as in the North, the prevailing economic system was far more industrialized. A lot of this had to do with the North having a better system of rivers, which could be in turn used to transports goods. The cities of the North had far more significant “hinterlands”, or areas that can be reached from one place by water.
So yes, of course it was about slavery, but not just slavery for the hell of it. One could also say that the inter-connected aspect of the economic disparity between North and South also played a big role.
2007-03-30 07:19:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Raindog 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Ok, look let's end this right now. The war was about slavery as an economic institution. The risks and costs it entailed for a federal government having to be always ready for rebellion. The expansion of the US and what it meant for industrialists. Furthermore, the war was mostly about the relation of states and the federal government. Was the constitution a perpetual contract?
There is also the fact that the North and the South had always been in competition, made up of different demographics and with different economic philosophies.
What I would mean (because i cannot speak for anyone else) by saying that the Civil War was not about slavery (and it wasn't) is that the war was fought over economic rights and the economic future of the country NOT to free blacks. So, while slavery was an issue (the most publicized issue but not the most important) it was NOT a humanitarian issue.
Capish. Americans need to drop all that messianic crap and realize they are selfish and hateful like the rest of us. Well, at least the rest of us don't rain death on our enemies everytime our presidents' support polls drops.
2007-03-30 15:57:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
i'm not going to try and understand what kind of qurestion you have posted here... mor fit for a blog honestly, but There was tension between the north and south, ONE of the reasons of which was slavery. A very good entry i found on a forum for this type of question: Slavery obviously had it's role. Was it the cause? I don't think so. Was it a factor? Absolutely.
I would present the following reasons for the cause of the war:
1. The south believed that the states role in the Union was one of consent, not of force.
2.The south also belived that a states sovereignity would not be surrendured upon entering the Union and that rights and powers not delegated by the Constitution were reserved to the state.
3.The south believed that they were being "invaded" and "coerced" by the northern states. The south did NOT want their way of life to change. They liked they way they lived and felt they were being coerced into changing their way of life by the north.
4. The north believed that the Union formed under the Constitution was "perpetual": sovereignity is a unit and cannot be divided.
5. The north also viewed secession as treason.
All these factors played out within the debates, arguments and deliberations and the fact that the country was expanding westward I think played MORE of a role than slavery. Slavery was an "after-thought".
President Lincoln even stated quite plainly that:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
So to say slavery was the cause I think is erroneous. I consent it was one of many causes but not the cause.
^_^ hope this is what you're looking for.
2007-03-30 14:15:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Neferiel 3
·
7⤊
2⤋
Yes and no.
Currently the most important reason for the War Between the States is perceived to be the abolition of chattel slavery, and I agree that this is the best and most important outcome of the war.
However, if you asked the combatants who were involved in the actual fighting, not many or even most of them would have said they were fighting about slavery. Most of them would have said the war was about whether states could or could not leave the Union. That was the politically correct thing to say at the time.
It's harder to say why individuals joined up to fight. Many looked at it as the honorable thing to do. Plenty were looking for adventure ( and boy howdy did it find them!), and many were seeking a steady paycheck.
In the current society I feel I should say clearly that slavery was, is, and always will be wrong, immoral, and a great evil.
But it was only one aspect of the movement to war.
Look at it this way...follow the money. The War Between the States was about money. As are many wars.
Everything changes. Nothing changes
2007-03-30 14:22:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
The argument that the Civil War was about states' rights is correct as far as it referred to the rights to perpetuate slavery. Jefferson's charming notion that slavery would eventually wither on the vine was not making itself manifest. Instead, the slave states fought tooth and nail to maintain an equilibrium with regard to slave and free states during westward expansion. All the trappings that came with this began to divide the nation sectionally, supplanting typical political divisions. Sectionalism led to the election of a sectionialist president in Lincoln, which directly led to secession.
Regarding the absurd argument of states' rights...I give you the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This act merely gave slavecatchers the authority to not only cross state lines and apprehend fugitive slaves, but also the authority to deputize anyone they chose to assist them, and if that person refused to cooperate they could face a fine and or jail time. Without looking at the vote or authors of the bill, I'm going to make a gross assumption that it was chiefly championed by southern politicians. Yes, this bill which completely trampled states' rights was successfully introduced and passed by those who would later make the absurd suggestion that secession was a noble defense on the issue of states' rights.
2007-03-30 20:44:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Matt 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
slavery had been an issue for a long time and it had been ignored. lincoln said that he would bring the south back into the union with or without the abolishment of slavery. The economies of the north and south were different. the things that helped the manufacturers in the north didn't always benifit the plantation owners in the south. they wanted to be able to seperate the country because the southern economy wanted to make laws that would benifit them and not have to worry about the north. slavery really wasn't the issue of the war. we think of it that way now and a lot of the north wanted to abolish slavery, but if the war ended and slavery continued, even the president would have accepted it. he just wanted to reunit the union.
2007-03-30 14:37:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Bertine 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think it's like a lot of other things.....It's how you interpret it.....And just because some Jack *** writes something on a piece of paper doesn't mean everyone in the area is going to agree! Hell look at our DUMB *** WAR we got now......Bet there's at least One or two of you who don't agree 100% of what we're doing there....But guess what...You're all Americans, and 150 yrs. from now you'll be dubbed as one of the Americans who supported this war. Not saying I don't support the troops, so don't throw one of those lines at me....I'm saying that give it 150yrs. and we'll be the talk of the "town" and everyone will be arguing about what it was about....Hell does anyone know now? Anyone seen those letters "someone" wrote to get the whole thing started? NO and you won't until 100 yrs. from now. So again I say it's all in how you interpret the thing. There I've said my peace, and I thought just for kicks I would show how everyone didn't think alike...even in those days!!!! Read your declaration up there and then read this quote...........
"This war is not about slavery."
Robert E. Lee
Further your research and you'll see that he joined the Confederacy because he refused to pull arms against his own family. He was a member of the Federal Army just before it all began. So like today, people fight the same war, for different reasons.
Peace Out!!!
2007-03-31 22:11:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Peace 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
If anyone says it was not about slavery, they are wrong. However, what I have heard is that it was not really a Civil War in the usual use of the term. The argument goes, that he slave states were within their rights to succeed from the Union. Although, I am not an expert on such matters, it still seems a Civil War to me.
.
2007-03-30 14:14:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Jacob W 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The declaration of one state's reasons for secession does not speak for the other 12 states, or for one specific reason for the reasons of the American Civil War. No one denies that slavery was "a reason". Most, however, will deny and resent the suggestion that slavery was "the" reason.
2007-03-30 14:14:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by The Oldest Soul 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
The war was not specifically about slavery, but without slavery the two differing sections would never have gotten to the point where there was enough animosity for a war to start.
2007-03-30 15:00:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by sdvwallingford 6
·
3⤊
1⤋