The South was right- the "Civil War" war not over slavery !

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

It Wasn't About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War
Paperback – February 16, 2021
by Samuel W. Mitcham Jr. (Author)


The Great Lie of the Civil War

If you think the Civil War was fought to end slavery, you’ve been duped.

In fact, as distinguished military historian Samuel Mitcham argues in his provocative new book, It Wasn’t About Slavery, no political party advocated freeing the slaves in the presidential election of 1860. The Republican Party platform opposed the expansion of slavery to the western states, but it did not embrace abolition.

The real cause of the war was a dispute over money and self-determination.

Before the Civil War, the South financed most of the federal government—because the federal government was funded by tariffs, which were paid disproportionately by the agricultural South that imported manufactured goods.

Yet, most federal government spending and subsidies benefited the North. The South wanted a more limited federal government and lower tariffs—the ideals of Thomas Jefferson—and when the South could not get that, it opted for independence.

Lincoln was unprepared when the Southern states seceded, and force was the only way to bring them—and their tariff money—back. That was the real cause of the war.

A well-documented and compelling read by a master historian, It Wasn’t About Slavery will change the way you think about Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the cause and legacy of America’s momentous Civil War.

I have that book.

I don't if it was said already but Lincoln wanted to deport freed Blacks to Haiti and Central Anerica. He did send a few hundred to Haiti and they mostly died.

[robertb]

We should have let them go so their negros wouldn't have infested the North.

No we should have sent them all north because you loved them so much. Yankees are full of shit, they had no problem with slavery when yankee ships where hauling them here and only got rid of slaves when they figured out it was cheaper to use and abuse Irish immigrants.

[robertb]

I have that book.

I don't if it was said already but Lincoln wanted to deport freed Blacks to Haiti and Central Anerica. He did send a few hundred to Haiti and they mostly died.

We set up an entire country for them, Liberia. The first order of business for the ones that went there was to enslave the locals. lol

[Italicus]

No we should have sent them all north because you loved them so much. Yankees are full of shit, they had no problem with slavery when yankee ships where hauling them here and only got rid of slaves when they figured out it was cheaper to use and abuse Irish immigrants.

Northern states got rid of slavery in the very beginning of the 19th century. It was only in the 1840s that large amounts of Irish and German immigrants started arriving.

[fortress europe]

I read something about the American Civil War causes.
I'm not an American, so I'll never be that familiar with your country's history, but I'll still describe what I've read as a neutral reader on some right-wing sites. A minority even among white nationalists (specifically anti-Christians) say that it was in fact a moral crusade to free the black slaves in the South and not an economic war. So that both sides were deeply inspired by a Christian spirit but had different views on slavery and used different Bible verses to justify their cause.
They also suggested that if the Confederates were victorious (in an alternate history scenario), the demographics of the South and the U.S. as a whole would have approached that of Brazil.
I view the whole thing unbiasedly as a historical subject and therefore value-free.
My country has also been criticized and attacked for it´s actions in the 20th century.

[~Elizabeth~]

Northern states got rid of slavery in the very beginning of the 19th century. It was only in the 1840s that large amounts of Irish and German immigrants started arriving.

From Google:


New Jersey was the last Northern state to end slavery in 1866.

Slavery's final legal death in New Jersey occurred on January 23, 1866, when in his first official act as governor, Marcus L. Ward of Newark signed a state Constitutional Amendment that brought about an absolute end to slavery in the state.


Slavery did not end in Kentucky and Delaware until December 1865 when enough states ratified the 13th Amendment.



The last state to outlaw slavery was Mississippi in 2013.

On February 7, 2013 confirmation came that the Archives had received the official ratification. Finally, with all paperwork troubles aside, Mississippi outlawed slavery and the Thirteenth Amendment was “unanimously” ratified.

[CosmoLady]

From the book The South Was Right!...

“The central theme of this book is that the Northern majority used unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral methods to change the Original Constitutional Republic of Sovereign States into a centralized, supreme, federal government that is now (2020) controlled by an evil leftist shadow government.”

“Through aggressive war and post-war unconstitutional political acts, the Yankee Empire changed the nature of the government from a voluntary compact among sovereign states to an empire established by the Northern majority via the conquest of the numerical minority of the South.”

Interesting perspective,
I agree that the Union committed war crimes, and the postwar Union occupation of the South was horrible,
but the occupation ended in 1877 and the US remained a mostly free country,
the US did not have an income tax or a Federal Reserve until 1913,
until a Southern, Democrat, and pro-British president allowed it.

And the Confederacy was pro-British, dependent on cotton exports,
and would have become a de-facto British colony if independent.
Some Southerners also attempted to nullify/secede in the 1830s.

Remaining part of the Union and ending slavery allowed the black population to disperse to the Northern cities,
and ultimately corrupt the North. This was the revenge of the South in a way.
South Carolina was majority black before the Civil War, and is now majority white.
This is because the blacks left, because they had somewhere else to go as free men.
Otherwise the South would have become a majority-black nightmare like South Africa.

Also the pro-British liberal globalism of the US took hold under Democrat presidents: Wilson and FDR.

And the expansion of the federal government mostly took place under Democrat presidents with the support of the South,
such as under Wilson during World War I, under FDR during the Great Depression and World War II,
and under LBJ during the Great Society, 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Vietnam.
And of course under W as well, who was a fake Republican, who was much more similar to LBJ than to Reagan.

[Smitty]

Northern states got rid of slavery in the very beginning of the 19th century. It was only in the 1840s that large amounts of Irish and German immigrants started arriving.

All the northern states and the territory that became the Midwest had abolished slavery by 1787 actually. But yes, large-scale European immigration began much later, so it had nothing to do with abolition in the North.

Edit: Except New York and New Jersey, of course.

[~Elizabeth~]

On Amazon.com...

A Southern View of the Invasion of the Southern States and War of 1861-65 Paperback – April 28, 2015
by Samuel A'Court Ashe (Author)

Samuel A'Court Ashe was a Confederate infantry captain in the War Between the States and celebrated editor, historian, and North Carolina legislator. Prior to his death in 1938, he was the last surviving commissioned officer of the Confederate States Army. In this little book, he gives a helpful overview of such subjects as the slave trade and Southern slavery, State sovereignty, the causes of secession, Abraham Lincoln's violations of the Constitution and usurpation of power, and more.

[Smitty]

Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and He is my Lord and Savior. I doubt that Saint Peter will kick me to the curb because I'm not a big fan of human bondage. Let me ask you something, holy man. Would you kill redheads if Leviticus told you to do so?

It appears I offended you, and for that I apologize. For a lot of people, especially on a largely right-wing website, being a Christian is just another part of growing up in a Christian culture. I guess it's more serious than that with you, which is great.

But I maintain my position. A moral system has to have a source. Otherwise, it carries no weight. Christians typically point to the Bible, being the written Word of God, as their authority. It is untenable to hold to one part while rejecting another. Your argument is flawed for several reasons:

1. The Bible doesn't command slavery anywhere. It merely permits it.

2. Nearly all Christians agree, with good reason, that we are no longer in the Israelite kingdom, which is why biblical commands to kill the Canaanites do not apply today.

3. A moral permission (i.e., the moral right to hold chattel slaves) is absolute. What is wrong in one era must be wrong in another, unless God has changed His requirements of us, as with incest, for example. He never rescinded His permission to own slaves.

4. But point #3 is unnecessary to make because the New Testament is in agreement with the Old on this point. Paul also tacitly permits slavery when he commands slaveowners to be good to their slaves. If it were morally wrong and a jeopardy to the Christian's eternal reward, surely Paul, speaking for God, would have told us. And how can we believe Paul when he tells us how to receive the salvation of our souls, if what he says on the subject of slavery is evil and abhorrent? And to what authority do we appeal in contradicting him?

Lastly, I will deign to defend myself, although it chafes me to soothe people's modern sensibilities. I do not "support" slavery, nor do I care to bring it back. The West decided for good enough reasons to do away with it. Also, if you knew me, you would know that I would be among the last to enslave, buy, or hold another person. So everybody can calm down.

I'm done with this discussion. You can reply if you want to, but I am stepping out.