The American Civil War (or the Southern Rebellion) was entirely over the issue of slavery, with the - General

The Confederacy's main hope for victory was that they could convince Britain and France to help them against the Union, but all that was blown out of the water when Britain decided to rely on Cotton from India after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and by that time Britain had already banned Slavery and it would be hypocritical to fight a war to preserve a nation that hadn't. Their other main hope was that high causalities would turn the civilian population in the North against the war forcing Lincoln to end the war. But Slavery was defiantly not the only issue that caused the war, but by the 1860s both the North and the South had completely different cultures from the other and completely different economies and ideologies.

[QUOTE=Sableye;39161420]im pretty sure sherman demonstrated that the boarder between north and south was fairly indefensable and quite passable[/QUOTE] If that were true, why weren't there more Shermans just blazing through the whole time?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39161964]If that were true, why weren't there more Shermans just blazing through the whole time?[/QUOTE] Because Sherman received special permission from Grant and Lincoln before he did his now infamous march to the sea. The Union Army was probably getting desperate as well.

[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;39161844]But Slavery was defiantly not the only issue that caused the war, but by the 1860s both the North and the South had completely different cultures from the other and completely different economies and ideologies.[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with anything? Why does having "completely different cultures from the other and completely different economies and ideologies" mean you have to start a war?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39162387]What does this have to do with anything? Why does having "completely different cultures from the other and completely different economies and ideologies" mean you have to start a war?[/QUOTE] They played a part in starting the war since different cultures and economies made the Northern and Southern states do things different. For instance the Northern states were more compliant with the Federal government while Southern States weren't so much aka "State's Rights". Another instance is that the anti-slavery movement became extremely powerful in the north and in some cases, it became very radical, which made the South very nervous as the Northern States became more powerful due to their growing populations. Take the reaction to John Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry, the anti-slavery movement in the North portrayed him as a hero(which he really wasn't) and the South portrayed him as a villain/psychopath(Which he really was). Also I can't remember their exact names, but there was a case when a Southern Congressmen nearly beat a Northern/Anti-Slavery Congressmen to death on the floor of the Senate/House with his cane. [B]EDIT: [/B]Here we go: [T]http://cdn.dipity.com/uploads/events/7e2cff4805f3898c8436b44047c439f8_1M.png[/T] The guy with the cane was Preston Brooks and the other is Charles Sumner, who was a member of the Anti-Slavery Free Soil Party.

[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;39162730]They played a part in starting the war since different cultures and economies made the Northern and Southern states do things different. For instance the Northern states were more compliant with the Federal government while Southern States weren't so much aka "State's Rights".[/quote] So? Why did they need to start a war over that? Every nation ever has people with different political opinions. [quote]Another instance is that the anti-slavery movement became extremely powerful in the north and in some cases, it became very radical, which made the South very nervous as the Northern States became more powerful due to their growing populations. Take the reaction to John Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry, the anti-slavery movement in the North portrayed him as a hero(which he really wasn't) and the South portrayed him as a villain/psychopath(Which he really was). Also I can't remember their exact names, but there was a case when a Southern Congressmen nearly beat a Northern/Anti-Slavery Congressmen to death on the floor of the Senate/House with his cane. [B]EDIT: [/B]Here we go: [T]http://cdn.dipity.com/uploads/events/7e2cff4805f3898c8436b44047c439f8_1M.png[/T] The guy with the cane was Preston Brooks and the other is Charles Sumner, who was a member of the Anti-Slavery Free Soil Party.[/QUOTE] The whole fact that they were trying to end slavery invalidates the South's position.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39162995]So? Why did they need to start a war over that? Every nation ever has people with different political opinions. The whole fact that they were trying to end slavery invalidates the South's position.[/QUOTE] Because there was absolutely no middle ground when it came to Slavery, you either outlawed it or you didn't and there were radicals on both sides that were encouraging violence, making compromises next to impossible. Every new state(Missouri, Kansas, California, and ETC) became political and sometimes even physical battlegrounds between Anti-Slavery from the North and Pro-Slavery Slavery from the South parties. And to top it all off, people in the South were more loyal to their states rather than the nation and this remained true even after succession because Jefferson Davis was never able to fully unite the Southern States to create a unified war effort which is another reason why the Confederacy lost.

[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;39163052]Because there was absolutely no middle ground when it came to Slavery, you either outlawed it or you didn't and there were radicals on both sides that were encouraging violence, making compromises next to impossible. Every new state(Missouri, Kansas, California, and ETC) became political and sometimes even physical battlegrounds between Anti-Slavery from the North and Pro-Slavery Slavery from the South parties.[/quote] No, there is no middle ground when you're talking about enslaving human beings. [quote]And to top it all off, people in the South were more loyal to their states rather than the nation and this remained true even after succession because Jefferson Davis was never able to fully unite the Southern States to create a unified war effort which is another reason why the Confederacy lost.[/QUOTE] Cool beans, but the Articles were thrown out long ago. The U.S. is a federal republic. All states are part of the same nation.

[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;39163052]Because there was absolutely no middle ground when it came to Slavery, you either outlawed it or you didn't and there were radicals on both sides that were encouraging violence, making compromises next to impossible. Every new state(Missouri, Kansas, California, and ETC) became political and sometimes even physical battlegrounds between Anti-Slavery from the North and Pro-Slavery Slavery from the South parties. And to top it all off,[B] people in the South were more loyal to their states rather than the nation[/B] and this remained true even after succession because Jefferson Davis was never able to fully unite the Southern States to create a unified war effort which is another reason why the Confederacy lost.[/QUOTE] I think this is still the case. If I were forced to fly a flag, any flag, I would choose to fly this one [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Flag_of_Mississippi.svg/200px-Flag_of_Mississippi.svg.png[/IMG] Over this one [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/200px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png[/IMG] That, and if you're American, I absolutely despise being called the same thing as you.

[QUOTE=download;38919676]The Civil War was over state rights, one of those "rights" was slavery[/QUOTE] Hardly. The south was actually [B]aggravated[/B] about states' rights; that is, the northern states' rights to not pursue escaped slaves. They had the federal government pass harsher fugitive slaves laws, creating federal marshalls whose jobs it was to hunt down fugitive slaves in northern, free states, expanding the power of the government. The south was only for states' rights when it came to protecting slavery

nobody would have died for a black, thread over [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] I mean why would a slave owner die to protect his ownership of slaves, it was a bigger issue of secession, with slavery as a smaller issue.

In a sense, the South was defined by slavery of this there is no doubt; the OP is wrong, however, in asserting it was [B]entirely[/B] about slavery though. Indeed, for the first 16 months of the War of Northern Aggression, it was about reunification. In the canny imagination of Lincoln, the Confederate States of America simply didn't exist. Those states had never seceded in his view, because secession was a legal impossibility. Lincoln was a lawyer;. all that had happened in the South was a large-scale riot that needed a larger than usual body of marshals and judges to sort out. Only when England and France threatened to side with the South did it become about slavery. Lincoln, after all, had embarked on a war of [I]denying[/I] that his presidency endangered slavery in the beginning. His 1st inaugural address speaks about this, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slaver in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have inclination to do so" True to his word, his actions, initially, backed this up. In a letter to Horace Greeley, an abolitionist and editor of the [I]New York Tribune[/I], on August 22nd, 1862, "My paramount objection in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the salves i would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Lincoln also removed a general, John C. Fremont, from command when the abolitionist general refused to rescind a proclamation confiscating the property -and freeing the slaves- of active Confederates in Missouri. It's my personal view that this whole ordeal relied heavily on tariffs. Let us not forget that it was a Southern state in 1832 (South Carolina) that threatened to secede from the Union over what the Southern states then called, "The Tariff of Abominations. Thanks to this piece of legislation, the agricultural South was financing 70% of the Federal Budget, but because of it's lack of population, didn't have an equivalent voice in Congress. The Morrill Tariff enacted on Mar. 2nd, 1861 raised that financing percentage. Back in the 1860's, the Federal Government was financed through tariffs, roughly 95%. This, combined with perceived weakness (Lack of votes) in the Federal Congress, came to many Southerners as an attack on their way of life and values. Slavery would have fallen out of favor without Lincoln anyways. Many Southerners began to hold disapproving views of it, including the likes of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. It was an expensive institution to support. You had to house, feed, clothe, etc these people. With and advancement being made towards the Industrial Revolution, cheaper machines would have replaced slave labor in many spots. It would have likely taken longer than 1865 for them to be freed, no doubt about it, but fighting a war to free the slaves was asinine. Of course, Lincoln was a tyrant Side note. Everyone who says that the South was doomed from the start is mistaken. Back in 19th Century, a majority of the soldiers and officers of the United States were Southerns; this is why the South enjoyed victory after victory in the beginning. As a matter of fact, the first official battle could have ended the war altogether. First Manassas on July 21st, 1861; the Confederates routed the Yankees so fast that when they retreated back into D.C., the Confederates didn't pursue, thinking it was a trap. Had they pursued, they would have found that that was the [B]only[/B] army between them and D.C.; they could have taken the capital and forced the Lincoln administration to recognize the Confederate States of America. Residents of D.C., that fateful day, got quite a surprise when the brought picnic baskets to the hill sides to watch what was hyped to be an easy Yankee victory, only to watch them get whooped and run.

[QUOTE=Dirk Hardpec;39347238]In a sense, the South was defined by slavery of this there is no doubt; the OP is wrong, however, in asserting it was [B]entirely[/B] about slavery though. Indeed, for the first 16 months of the War of Northern Aggression, it was about reunification.[/quote] You are missing the point. The point is that the Southern Rebellion was caused by a chain of events that linked back to slavery. Slavery was essentially the main cause, from which you can link everything else. [quote]In the canny imagination of Lincoln, the Confederate States of America simply didn't exist. Those states had never seceded in his view, because secession was a legal impossibility. Lincoln was a lawyer;. all that had happened in the South was a large-scale riot that needed a larger than usual body of marshals and judges to sort out.[/quote] Legally it never existed. No country recognized the legitimacy of the Confederate states (plus it failed to match the criteria for a state, hence why I see it as a rebellion). [quote]Only when England and France threatened to side with the South did it become about slavery.[/quote] Not true. England and France would have never declared war on the United States, and support given to the rebellion was mainly war profiteering. [quote]Lincoln, after all, had embarked on a war of [I]denying[/I] that his presidency endangered slavery in the beginning. His 1st inaugural address speaks about this, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slaver in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have inclination to do so" True to his word, his actions, initially, backed this up. In a letter to Horace Greeley, an abolitionist and editor of the [I]New York Tribune[/I], on August 22nd, 1862, "My paramount objection in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the salves i would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Lincoln also removed a general, John C. Fremont, from command when the abolitionist general refused to rescind a proclamation confiscating the property -and freeing the slaves- of active Confederates in Missouri.[/quote] This is mostly irrelevant as it ignores the buildup before the Rebellion. Lincoln simply got into power at a time when things reached a tipping point. [quote]It's my personal view that this whole ordeal relied heavily on tariffs. Let us not forget that it was a Southern state in 1832 (South Carolina) that threatened to secede from the Union over what the Southern states then called, "The Tariff of Abominations. Thanks to this piece of legislation, the agricultural South was financing 70% of the Federal Budget, but because of it's lack of population, didn't have an equivalent voice in Congress.[/quote] Actually there is a thing called proportional representation. The reason that the power of the South gradually came under threat is simply due to the fact that the northern states were developing economically and had a high rate of population growth. The north was more powerful economically, and had more people, that is why it deserved greater political weight. [quote]The Morrill Tariff enacted on Mar. 2nd, 1861 raised that financing percentage. Back in the 1860's, the Federal Government was financed through tariffs, roughly 95%. This, combined with perceived weakness (Lack of votes) in the Federal Congress, came to many Southerners as an attack on their way of life and values.[/quote] Practically all minority voting was absent in the south, especially when certain candidates were removed so you couldn't vote for them. Isolationism is a bad thing, and slavery as an institution is not a good one to maintain. [quote]Slavery would have fallen out of favor without Lincoln anyways. Many Southerners began to hold disapproving views of it, including the likes of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. It was an expensive institution to support. You had to house, feed, clothe, etc these people.[/quote] Slaves were still economically viable for a long time. In fact we still have slaves today in some countries, and most countries where it is removed is usually due to heavy pressure (the British were a major force in clamping down on the slave trade). [quote]With and advancement being made towards the Industrial Revolution, cheaper machines would have replaced slave labor in many spots.[/quote] But they didn't. Even after the war, sharecropping was immensely common for decades, and machinery took a long time to arrive. Industrialization of agriculture only really took off in the 20th century when the internal combustion engine and electricity became commonly available. [quote]It would have likely taken longer than 1865 for them to be freed, no doubt about it, but fighting a war to free the slaves was asinine.[/quote] Why? The longer left to itself, the more the south would economically, socially, and culturally go backwards and decline into rural poverty. The slaveowners would have ended up forcing every last ounce of productivity out of the slaves, before most likely abandoning them and bringing in machinery or converting it to pasture land. Of course, if there was no legislative action, then I would not see slavery going for many decades. [quote]Of course, Lincoln was a tyrant[/quote] No he wasn't. [quote]Side note. Everyone who says that the South was doomed from the start is mistaken. Back in 19th Century, a majority of the soldiers and officers of the United States were Southerns; this is why the South enjoyed victory after victory in the beginning.[/quote] Not true. Initially the South had a tactical advantage after they used the railways to reinforce their position early on. The Northern armies were still organizing and had been forced into battle early, hence initial setbacks. [quote]As a matter of fact, the first official battle could have ended the war altogether. First Manassas on July 21st, 1861; the Confederates routed the Yankees so fast that when they retreated back into D.C., the Confederates didn't pursue, thinking it was a trap. Had they pursued, they would have found that that was the [B]only[/B] army between them and D.C.; they could have taken the capital and forced the Lincoln administration to recognize the Confederate States of America. Residents of D.C., that fateful day, got quite a surprise when the brought picnic baskets to the hill sides to watch what was hyped to be an easy Yankee victory, only to watch them get whooped and run.[/QUOTE] If the Confederates did that, it would have broken down into a pillaging and looting of the city. Most of those men were badly trained soldiers with little experience who would have taken a city to bits. The Union army would then have marched up north to regroup and push a counteroffensive. The eastern theatre is the only one the confederates had any moderate success in. They got destroyed incredibly quickly in the Western and naval theatres. A failed economic system and diplomatic isolation meant that it pretty much lost the war before it even began.

The Civil War wasn't ENTIRELY about slavery. A lot of the reason the secession happened was simply because the south felt it no longer had any say in who was elected. The 1860 election finished with almost all of the southern states going for Breckinridge. Those that didn't ended up voting for Bell or Douglas. The south felt that their interests (obviously one being slavery) wouldn't be protected anymore. From the onset they had hoped for a peaceful secession but it became obvious pretty quickly that a peaceful secession would not happen.

[QUOTE=Mr. Face;39358214]The Civil War wasn't ENTIRELY about slavery. A lot of the reason the secession happened was simply because the south felt it no longer had any say in who was elected. The 1860 election finished with almost all of the southern states going for Breckinridge. Those that didn't ended up voting for Bell or Douglas. The south felt that their interests (obviously one being slavery) wouldn't be protected anymore.[/quote] Name one major "interest" the south felt wouldn't be protected that can't be tied to slavery. [quote]From the onset they had hoped for a peaceful secession but it became obvious pretty quickly that a peaceful secession would not happen.[/QUOTE] Wonder how they came to that conclusion. Maybe it's the fact that they fired first.

[QUOTE=CG-105;39399044]Name one major "interest" the south felt wouldn't be protected that can't be tied to slavery. Wonder how they came to that conclusion. Maybe it's the fact that they fired first.[/QUOTE] iirc they fired first because Lincoln essentially forced them to. Lincoln was sending in supplies to Fort Sumter despite the Confederates wanting the Union to leave the fort (for obvious reasons. It was, after all, in the south). The Confederates fired on the Union ships resupplying the fort.

[url]http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery[/url] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Flameon;39455366][url]http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery[/url][/QUOTE] I really doubt the credibility of that source. It looks like it is very left leaning (there's clear bias in most of the articles) not to mention the fact that I've [i]never[/i] heard of that website. Also, that's not how you debate. Posting links is not even remotely how you're supposed to debate.

What's more interesting to think about is what if the South HADN'T seceded. Lincoln would take office, but would find a Congress dominated by Southern dems and Northern copperheads, unable to pass any meaningful anti-slavery legislation. Slavery would remain intact, but would gradually dissolve with the occurrence of the Industrial Revolution in a decade or so. No war, no utter destruction of the South miring millions in poverty for life, no Reconstruction and no resentment of blacks (Black codes, etc.) sprouting from tyrannical Radical Republican control of the South. In short, a much more prosperous, optimistic, and socially cohesive nation.

[QUOTE=uberdeath;39462353]What's more interesting to think about is what if the South HADN'T seceded. Lincoln would take office, but would find a Congress dominated by Southern dems and Northern copperheads, unable to pass any meaningful anti-slavery legislation. Slavery would remain intact, but would gradually dissolve with the occurrence of the Industrial Revolution in a decade or so. No war, no utter destruction of the South miring millions in poverty for life, no Reconstruction and no resentment of blacks (Black codes, etc.) sprouting from tyrannical Radical Republican control of the South. In short, a much more prosperous, optimistic, and socially cohesive nation.[/QUOTE] This never could have possibly happened in reality. [quote]sprouting from tyrannical Radical Republican control of the South. In short, a much more prosperous, optimistic, and socially cohesive nation.[/quote] tyrannical and racial?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39462622]This never could have possibly happened in reality. [/QUOTE] good job, well-reasoned refutation, 10/10 [QUOTE=Sobotnik;39462622] tyrannical and racial?[/QUOTE] tyrannical is a subjective term, but i think it makes sense given that they subjugated the entirety of the South to martial law. "Radical" is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican"]how they were commonly known[/URL].

[QUOTE=uberdeath;39462977]good job, well-reasoned refutation, 10/10[/QUOTE] Well, could you describe a series of events which would have prevented it breaking out?

William Yancy never speaks at the 1860 DNC, the Democratic Party doesn't split, Lincoln could lose the election or would win by a much smaller margin. There are plenty of points of divergence, all it would require is for South Carolina to keep its cool for a year or so.

[QUOTE=uberdeath;39463104]William Yancy never speaks at the 1860 DNC, the Democratic Party doesn't split, Lincoln could lose the election or would win by a much smaller margin. There are plenty of points of divergence, all it would require is for South Carolina to keep its cool for a year or so.[/QUOTE] But the abolition movement was reaching a crux around about that time. I'm not too sure how you would stop it, because multiple foreign countries had banned slavery by that stage and the US navy spent that past half century hunting down slave traders too.