Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Was the Civil War started b/c of Slavery or States' Rights?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Was the Civil War started b/c of Slavery or States' Rights?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Why did the American Civil War begin?

Slavery, everything else stems from that

22%

[ 18 ]

States' Rights

18%

[ 15 ]

Struggle between two economic systems

10%

[ 8 ]

It began over States' Rights, later Emancipation was important

22%

[ 18 ]

A struggle of States' Rights and two economic systems

21%

[ 17 ]

Something brilliant for which I'm too dim-witted to have anticipated

[ 4 ]

Total Votes : 80

Author

Message

ThingsComeAround

Joined: 07 Nov 2008

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:17 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

ThingsComeAround wrote:

I recall hearing about a theory that most Northerners and abolitionists were against slavery due to their greater bias and desire to fully segregate blacks and whites. After all, how many slaves refused the master when he (or she) made a sexual advance?

How many slaves were in a position to refuse? Probably zero or close to it.

the ones whose lives would be endangered should others learn of the adultery- (ex: not accepting advances of the daughter of the plantation owner / his wife)

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:28 am Post subject:

Koveras wrote:

Speaking as an ignorant onlooker, it doesn't make sense to me when one points to a right regarding slavery, which the North wasn't honouring, and then says "see, it was all about slavery," because the supposed proof could simply be taken to prove the opposite, namely that it was all about rights.

Huh? You're just taking slavery here and calling it "rights." Its the same semantics employed when people say the Civil War was the 'Struggle between two economic systems,' when one of those economic systems was slavery. Slavery was all these things: a (lucrative) right of the owner to treat people like chattel, an alternative economic system to the industrializing North, and an institution that threatened to fuel Southern imperialism from Havana to Tierra del Fuego.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 4:27 pm Post subject:

It seems like you`re indulging in an anachronism. In the minds of landed southerners, what was slavery but a right and an economic system? They considered it legitimate. I can imagine southerners around that time saying, in all sincerity, that the Civil War was fought over rights. Someone upthread stated that the north and south had a longish history of ill-will and conflict over rights; put in that context, the right to slaves could be, as yet another poster said, the straw that broke the camel`s back. So, again, speaking as a member of the gallery, I don`t find that piece of evidence a strong one, since it refers to rights as well as slaves. Perhaps the answer to question posited in this thread depends on who you ask. If so, that would mean that you`re the one playing semantics instead of investigating history. While we can congratulate ourselves that our side won, our historiography should strive to be more than self-congratulation.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:03 pm Post subject:

Koveras wrote:

It seems like you`re indulging in an anachronism. In the minds of landed southerners, what was slavery but a right and an economic system? They considered it legitimate. I can imagine southerners around that time saying, in all sincerity, that the Civil War was fought over rights.

Well, it wasn't fought over States' Rights, as you can see from the South Carolinian Declaration of Secession.

Quote:

Someone upthread stated that the north and south had a longish history of ill-will and conflict over rights; put in that context, the right to slaves could be, as yet another poster said, the straw that broke the camel`s back. So, again, speaking as a member of the gallery, I don`t find that piece of evidence a strong one, since it refers to rights as well as slaves.

That's inaccurate. Slavery was a problem that had festered since the Founding. The largest bone of contention during the Constitutional Congress was slavery; witness the three-fifths compromise.

Quote:

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

Slaves were to count as three-fifths of a citizen for the purposes of representation in the House of Representatives. Tell me that isn't preposterous.

Quote:

Perhaps the answer to question posited in this thread depends on who you ask. If so, that would mean that you`re the one playing semantics instead of investigating history. While we can congratulate ourselves that our side won, our historiography should strive to be more than self-congratulation.

You have yet to offer any facts or evidence to buttress your pomposity. Many in the North only wanted to preserve the Union. Many others were fighting a religious crusade to abolish slavery.

You can accuse me of revisionism or wearing modern-day glasses. But it seems to me you should first do the knowledge.

travel zen

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Location: Good old Toronto, Canada

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:02 am Post subject:

Slavery was an economic system that turned into a major moral issue in the US. It already was for decades in Europe. Much of the world that mattered then (England, Germany, France, etc) had already abolished slavery making the South look very backward and out of touch. It had no backers (a slave nation in the industrial age?), it was unsustainable (slavery while its competetors used machines?) and its culture was very last century (1700's I do declare !) Could the South have won? Not even in the short run. [/quote]

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:40 pm Post subject:

Quote:

What a laughable notion. Lincoln even stated publicly he'd overlook slavery as long as the union were maintained. These people didn't give a whit about freeing slaves. People in New York rioted and lynched blacks because they were so outraged they were being conscripted to go fight for them down south. You claim you know more about the Civil War than anyone else, yet you don't even know this? What BULL.
Quote:

You're confusing why people fight and why the conflict was started.

Yes, the New York Draft Riots happened. That doesn't mean this war wasn't ultimately about slavery. If anything it goes to show how much slavery was an issue.

Yes there were Copperheads that considered fighting for the South. There were Southern units that fought for the North.

Of course most individual soldiers fought not for states rights or abolition, but because their friends and family from their hometown were fighting in the war as well. Leaving the North to fight for the South would, in some ways, be a violation of the spirit many in the Confederacy fought for- the idea that right, or wrong, your neighbor is your neighbor and you stand by them in a crisis.

You are suggesting that a faction personifies the whole. I don't think it does in this case. If what you are saying is true where was the mass desertion? Where was the Democractic landslide victory in 64?

Most soldiers came to agree that if abolishing slavery helped put down the rebellion, then well abolish it.

As the war hardened, people's attitudes changed.

But the driving issue was slavery. It was over Lincoln's perceived attitude towards slavery that the South seceded.

As the war evolved so did the thinking behind it. This war was not a homogeneous fight of Capitalist Federalist Yankees agains States Right Loving Slavery Ain't an Issue Rebels.

Quote:

I never said it had "zero" impact. I said the war was not fought over slavery. It was fought because powerful people in the north wanted to centralize government power even further (Lincoln, a statist, corporatist lawyer, achieved this by taking the country to war).

Certainly that was a part of it, in particular the wanted to centralize power over the slavery question and its expansion into the territories.

Quote:

Slavery was incidental; a convenient excuse for Lincoln to bolster his image after the fact, nothing more (as if he were some kind of saintly figure, and not the corporatist slime-ball railway lawyer that he was)

I think you are underestimating how big the slavery issue was. Think about the circulation of Uncle Tom's Cabin and the uproar it caused. Think about John Brown's raid. When was the last time an execution caused such a stir.

Lincoln certainly was no saint.

Quote:

I support people liberating themselves, I do not support interventionism.

So Friedrich Von Steuben, Lafeyette, and the French Fleet at Yorktown should have left and left it up to us to win our Independence? France and Spain should have not gone again to war with England and supported us in various ways. Understood.

It works both ways.

Quote:

Southern slavery would have been ended in due time, same as it was everywhere else, minus all the death and destruction and centralization of government power.

And the British Occupation of the colonies would have ended in due time, minus all the death and destruction.

Quote:

Yeah, sure. Slaves had every right to rise against their masters. But the north had no right invading and destroying the south. Separate issues.

In fantasy land. But unlike philosophical debates, actually dealing with war means those issues are connected.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:57 pm Post subject:

In October The NY Times started a series of articles about the Civil War. Interesting reads.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

It goes to show how people were rejecting the notion that slavery was an issue worth fighting a war of aggression over. Clearly Lincoln wanted to use slavery to give his government the moral high ground and launch a "crusade" against the south. People in the north weren't buying it. Because people know a sham when they see it. It's like saying the Iraq war was fought over WMDs. No. It wasn't. Similarly, the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Slavery was the excuse.

Quote:

You are suggesting that a faction personifies the whole. I don't think it does in this case. If what you are saying is true where was the mass desertion? Where was the Democractic landslide victory in 64?

I'm not talking about a faction. It was the central government. Lincoln took the the north to war against the south and didn't stop until power was centralized over the entire country. This is why the war was fought. Without this factor, the war wouldn't have been fought. Lincoln (and others) stated clearly that he didn't mind if the south had slavery, as long as the union were maintained. Cut and dry.

Quote:

Most soldiers came to agree that if abolishing slavery helped put down the rebellion, then well abolish it.

Bull. Most union soldiers just obeyed orders and didn't even want to be there.

Quote:

As the war hardened, people's attitudes changed.

Meaningless statement.

Quote:

But the driving issue was slavery. It was over Lincoln's perceived attitude towards slavery that the South seceded.

No. The driving issue was centralization of power vs. states' rights.

Quote:

As the war evolved so did the thinking behind it. This war was not a homogeneous fight of Capitalist Federalist Yankees agains States Right Loving Slavery Ain't an Issue Rebels.

Yeah, because propaganda kicked in and Lincoln painted it as a holy crusade against evil (which we all know only a kind, caring central government could put an end to). A large central government using brute force, conscription, taxation, aggression, and atrocities to bring justice unto the world. Yes, that's exactly what America is supposed to be about (forget liberty) Rolling Eyes

Quote:

It was a novel. Give me a break. Yes public opinion is important, but ultimately the movers and shakers do what the want. Lincoln et al cared nothing whatsoever about negroes in chains. But you think they would pass up on such useful propaganda?

Quote:

Lincoln certainly was no saint.

You got that right.

Quote:

I support people liberating themselves, I do not support interventionism.

If French volunteers wanted to come and fight willingly for liberty, then by all means. But for the French government to send conscripts overseas was interventionist. I already stated that I do not support interventionism (one country/state intervening in the affairs of others).

Quote:

It works both ways.

Except that in the Civil War, the just side lost.

Quote:

Southern slavery would have been ended in due time, same as it was everywhere else, minus all the death and destruction and centralization of government power.

And the British Occupation of the colonies would have ended in due time, minus all the death and destruction.

Either way, the revolutionaries were just in resisting their oppressors by any means necessary. The black slaves were similarly justified. I would also support the moral right of any white abolitionists (from the north or south) to assist blacks in rising up against the injustice of slavery in the south (using violent or non-violent means). Just not the Union armies.

Quote:

Yeah, sure. Slaves had every right to rise against their masters. But the north had no right invading and destroying the south. Separate issues.

In fantasy land. But unlike philosophical debates, actually dealing with war means those issues are connected.

Fantasy land is believing propaganda. You pride yourself on your understanding of realpolitik, yet you are naive enough to believe that the powers that be (people with real power, to take the country to war) actually gave a damn about slavery. They didn't. Public opinion did not even favor a war to free the slaves. The slavery issue was injected into the debate and used as an excuse by those in power to go to war. Big governments love war. They'll use any excuse!

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:22 am Post subject:

Quote:

People in the north weren't buying it. Because people know a sham when they see it. It's like saying the Iraq war was fought over WMDs. No. It wasn't. Similarly, the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Slavery was the excuse.

I'll see your NY draft riots, with the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who continued to serve. The Emancipation Proclamation did little in the way of desertion, however incompetent generalship, bounty jumping, and slacker conscripts provided most of the desertions. It seems to me that those in blue who fought, wanted to fight.

Quote:

Yes, he fought to maintain the Union. But the reason the South seceded was because they feared Lincoln's anti-slavery positions. Again, it comes back to slavery.

Quote:

Bull. Most union soldiers just obeyed orders and didn't even want to be there.

Absolutely untrue. Hundreds of thousands re-enlisted when their terms of service were up. They could have found substitutes or deserted, but they chose to fight on. They could have voted Lincoln out, but they backed him by massive margins over McClellan in the 1964 election after some of the worst fighting of the war.

Quote:

No. The driving issue was centralization of power vs. states' rights.

I don't think it was so for the USCT troops or the abolitionists that fought.

Again, the reason the South seceded was because of Lincoln and the Republican's position on the slavery question.

Quote:

Yeah, because propaganda kicked in and Lincoln painted it as a holy crusade against evil

Actually that "propaganda" was done by thousands of private citizens and abolitionists in town hall meetings, at dinner tables, and at churches.

Did it ever occur to you that one reason people fought so hard was because they believed slavery to be wrong? Do you think there weren't any abolitionists or something? Did not the European immigrants of the North fear Southern Aristocracy taking up the same role as nobility back in Europe?

Quote:

It was a novel. Give me a break.

I think you are grossly underestimating its impact. It's hard for us to fathom a novel having such an impact in this day and age, but it was incredibly controversial at the time. I'd compare to something by Marx or Darwin in terms of how much it got people talking and debating their course of action.

Quote:

So you do not support the French fleet bottling up the British at Yorktown? Thank you for clarification.

I presume then you also would reject the Confederacy's violation of Kentucky's neutrality? Wouldn't that make the Confederacy a hostile occupying power? Wouldn't that have made their cause unjust?

Quote:

Except that in the Civil War, the just side lost.

I accept your support of chattel slavery and the notion that the White man is the superior of the negro and has every right to hold him in bondage.

Quote:

So private citizens can lend aid to blacks rising up.

But those same private citizens cannot have their government take those actions?

Believe me if private citizens wage this war instead of the government it becomes a lot more nastier.

Quote:

Yes, not all people on the Union side fought for slavery.

Again what people fought for, and what caused the war are two distinct issues.

I have no problem with the notion that plenty of people did not fight for slavery. I do take exception to the idea that slavery was not the cause of the war.

Both sides contained various factions under their tent, united in common cause, whether it be Unionists, War Democrats, Profit-Loving Money Grubbers, Abolitionists, and "It's my duty" types. The Confederates included Slaveholders, racists, homicidal psychopaths, professional soldiers, States Rights believers, and folks who fought alongside their neighbors.

But this None of it was about slavery and no one fought to end slavery is silliness.

Politicians on both sides used propaganda and unsavory measures. But many people fought regardless of what the politicians said or did.

Just because propaganda is used doesn't mean that everyone is fighting because of propaganda.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:14 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

Actually I don't really know the ratio of volunteers to conscripts. But it seems to me the fact they needed conscription at all shows people weren't exactly tripping over themselves to enlist (and in fact they were rioting over it). No doubt some naive people did sign up for the crusade, only to be led onto the battlefield and slaughtered recklessly in Lincoln's war of aggression. But regardless, in reality nobody 'enjoys' fighting in a war (except maybe sadistic generals who get to sit back and send other men off to their deaths).

And just to preempt you, no I do not think conscription in the Confederate armies was just either.

Quote:

Yes, he fought to maintain the Union. But the reason the South seceded was because they feared Lincoln's anti-slavery positions. Again, it comes back to slavery.

Allow me to reverse/correct the above for you:

"Yes, the South seceded because they feared Lincoln's anti-slavery positions. But the reason Lincoln went to war was to save the Union. Again, it comes back to saving the Union."

Quote:

Bull. Most union soldiers just obeyed orders and didn't even want to be there.

Yeah, well at this point the war was already basically won. Atlanta had already fallen before the election. And McClellen, the ex-general (who lost basically every battle he fought), was hardly a better candidate.

Quote:

No. The driving issue was centralization of power vs. states' rights.

I don't think it was so for the USCT troops or the abolitionists that fought.

Again, the reason the South seceded was because of Lincoln and the Republican's position on the slavery question.

But that was not the reason for the war. It was the north that took the war to the south (and yeah I know the first shots were technically fired by the south at Ft. Sumpter, but give me a break). And again, the reason the north took the war to the south was over centralization of government power. If the north had just left the south alone, there'd have been no war. Simple as that. Exactly what part of this don't you get?

Quote:

Yeah, because propaganda kicked in and Lincoln painted it as a holy crusade against evil

My bone is not with abolitionists (obviously). It is with the central government. Last time I checked, abolitionists weren't going around killing, raping and pillaging civilians.

Quote:

It was a novel. Give me a break.

And I maintain that it was just a novel. A good novel, but still just a novel. It didn't influence the government to go to war. The government went to war to centralize its power.

Quote:

I presume then you also would reject the Confederacy's violation of Kentucky's neutrality? Wouldn't that make the Confederacy a hostile occupying power? Wouldn't that have made their cause unjust?

Sure it absolutely would, in that case. But not in the fight against the Union forces.

Quote:

Except that in the Civil War, the just side lost.

I accept your support of chattel slavery and the notion that the White man is the superior of the negro and has every right to hold him in bondage.

Wow. That's out of the blue (and completely stupid).

Quote:

It becomes a lot nastier when a centralized government commands a huge army and goes on a spree of murder and destruction.

Quote:

I have no problem with the notion that plenty of people did not fight for slavery. I do take exception to the idea that slavery was not the cause of the war.

Go ahead and take exception. The war was cause by the North taking the war to the south, who just wanted to be left alone.

Quote:

But this None of it was about slavery and no one fought to end slavery is silliness.

What bunk. I never made any such claim; unless you are referring to Lincoln and his generals (in which case it is true).

Quote:

Just because propaganda is used doesn't mean that everyone is fighting because of propaganda.

I never said this.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:16 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Koveras wrote:

Well, it wasn't fought over States' Rights, as you can see from the South Carolinian Declaration of Secession.

Quote:

That's inaccurate. Slavery was a problem that had festered since the Founding. The largest bone of contention during the Constitutional Congress was slavery; witness the three-fifths compromise.

Quote:

Slaves were to count as three-fifths of a citizen for the purposes of representation in the House of Representatives. Tell me that isn't preposterous.

Quote:

I have no interest in accusing you of revisionism, as I consider myself a revisionist, and indeed I haven't any clue what the accepted vision of the Civil War is. I don't have much interest in this topic, besides a gut feeling that the South is generally maligned and misunderstood, and that constantly relating everything back to slavery tout court reflects a modern obsession which is inimical to good historiography. For the last time, I do not believe that the quotation you provided is strong evidence of your thesis. Take this as constructive criticism from a relatively disinterested onlooker, rather than an accusation of any kind.

comm

Joined: 22 Jun 2010

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:39 am Post subject:

Two very different things happened to begin the conflict: 1. The Confederacy seceded 2. The US invaded Clearly the War of Secession began and was fought over the right of states to secede from the Union. Lincoln didn't just wake up one morning and say "Well, there's now a neighboring country which hold slaves, we'd better invade it and liberate them!" As for the reasons for secession the governments of the Confederacy had a lot of different reasons for seceding, the most important being the North's unconstitutional discrimination against their slavery practices. So to wrap things up nicely: The governments of the South seceded to preserve and secure slavery, the North invaded to deny states the right to secede and then abolished slavery. Finally, since only a third of Southern families owned slaves, it's reasonable to say that they were fighting for the right of their state to secede, rather than for slavery itself. Similarly, soldiers for the North likely saw the good of liberating slaves and uniting the United States as a moral cause worth fighting for.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:56 am Post subject:

comm wrote:

Finally, since only a third of Southern families owned slaves, it's reasonable to say that they were fighting for the right of their state to secede, rather than for slavery itself.

This is a weak conclusion. Poorer soldiers in the Confederacy fought for the right to eventually have slaves. They were particularly emboldened by plans for Southern expansionism.

Look, for example, at the war with Mexico. Much of the tension between North and South related to territorial expansion. The South wanted to expand, and expand slavery. This was an opportunity for the non-slaveholders to become slaveholders in the frontier. Southern elites compromised with the North; they would exchange the right to expansion of slavery for preservation of the status quo. As elites, the status quo favored their interests, but it was prejudicial to the poorer Southerners.

Once secession occurred, the bargain between the North and Soutnern elites was off, and suddenly poor Southerners had an opportunity to distinguish themselves in battle and thus earn their 40 acres and a slave.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:42 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Only seven percent of people who had their names drawn for service actually served, most (including farmers, and poor unskilled laborers) paid a commutation fee (often paid through insurance policies or through funds raise by local communities) or hired a substitute (often a professional bounty jumper).

46,000 served. 74,000 hired substitutes. 800,000 enlisted or reenlisted. Conscription was actually a clumsy stick and carrot to raise money and encourage volunteering. (Source: McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom)

Quote:

So if the South doesn't secede because of Lincoln's slavery position, does Lincoln still fight the war for Union?

No, the reason the South rebelled was because of Slavery. The reason Lincoln sent soldiers was to put down the Rebellion.

Quote:

Everyone knew that the Democrat's stood for peace an negotiation with the South. The soldiers were still being bombarded and sniped at outside of Petersburg and living in squalor.

Interestingly you bring up Little Mac. He was a proponent of the soft war you endorsed, and basically allowed the war to persist and persist by constantly losing his nerve and having no stomach for war.

Quote:

My bone is not with abolitionists (obviously). It is with the central government. Last time I checked, abolitionists weren't going around killing, raping and pillaging civilians.

John Brown

Quote:

And I maintain that it was just a novel. A good novel, but still just a novel. It didn't influence the government to go to war.

It influenced the people to vote for abolitionist/Republican candidates, which in turn helped propel Lincoln into office.

Preston Brooks' (Southern congressman) savage beating of Charles Sumner (abolitionist Senator) on the floor of Congress also hardened Northern attitudes to the South. One thing it did was make it morally difficult for the South to say that it was the oppressed party and defender of the democratic process.

There was also John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry and his Execution. It had Americans ask themselves whether or not it was moral to kill in opposition to slavery, with many answering 'yes'. It also stoked Southern fears of 'Yankee agitation' and they began to seriously train their militias.

All of these things were serious events to the average American and shaped attitudes towards the coming conflict. All stemmed from Slavery.

Quote:

Sure it absolutely would, in that case. But not in the fight against the Union forces.

So Kentuckians were just in using force to expel Confederate soldiers, and since Kentucky thereafter affirmed its loyalty to the Union, the Union was right in sending an Army to expel the Confederate invader and seek to destroy the army that had invaded.

[quote"Steelrails"]I accept your support of chattel slavery and the notion that the White man is the superior of the negro and has every right to hold him in bondage.[/quote]

Quote:

Wow. That's out of the blue (and completely stupid).

Quote:

Except that in the Civil War, the just side lost.

Is it possible that people on both sides were fighting for just causes? Is it also possible that people on both sides were fighting for unjust causes? Is it also possible that these things occurred simultaneously?

Quote:

It becomes a lot nastier when a centralized government commands a huge army and goes on a spree of murder and destruction.

Yes but civilian casualties were relatively few, and so were atrocities. Or you could have the nastiness of bleeding Kansas on a much larger scale.

Suggesting that two groups of private citizens can fight guerrilla warfare without involving their respective governments is incredibly naive and is once again indicative of the utopianistic strain evident in your arguments.

Quote:

Go ahead and take exception. The war was cause by the North taking the war to the south, who just wanted to be left alone.

Don't secede and stop holding negros in bondage.

[quote\"Steelrails"]Just because propaganda is used doesn't mean that everyone is fighting because of propaganda.[/quote]

Quote:

I never said this.

You implied that people fought for propaganda. Why else would all of those people fight for Lincoln's Union restoration?

Considering that nearly all of the soldiers that fought for the Union the first three years were volunteers, I'd submit that the people chose knowing full well what the issues were.

It's not like there was any big secret to what the South's secession was about, nor what Lincoln's stated goals were. It was out there, plain for everyone to see. This didn't come as any shock. Northerner's would have supported the war whether or not the Union fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. Both sides were looking for a brawl.

Most of the propaganda was motivating further, an already motivated population.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:33 am Post subject:

VQ, is it possible that the Civil War was fought to expand the North's industrial market?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 9 of 11

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe