NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically, I was in my AP US history class reviewing for the exam, and my oh so wonderful teacher decided to discuss the civil war with us. Mainly, she repeated (for the second time) that the civil war had NOTHING to do with slavery. I, of course, objected (I kept quiet the first time but I had had enough by then), saying that the position she was taking was...wrong.


Was I correct, or do I need to relearn history? Can all of the major issues (fugitive slave, slavery in washington DC, slavery in territories, tariffs) be traced back to slavery, or was slavery just the "straw that broke the camels back", so to speak.


Oh, and she threw me out of class for saying that she was wrong. :D

I remember taking the AP test...didn't study one iota and got a 5! I realized that 80 questions over 200+ years of history couldn't be that specific, so I didn't worry about it and winged it...I'm a lucky bastard, I guess.

I'm personally of the opinion that slavery had almost nothing directly to do with the war, but its influence came primarily from the economic differences it produced as a result of its continued existence in the South; the fact that the North industrialized and the South didn't created the strain that led to the outbreak of the War since their economic interests tended to be at odds with each other and the cultures created clashed with each other.

The North was no less racist or intolerant than the South, in reality.

You were right.

According to the Declarations of Secession (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Mississippi) and the "Cornerstone Speech (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76)" of Confederate VP Alexandar Stephens, the South was built on the cornerstone of slavery. It was to protect that cornerstone and to be able to expand it that the Confederacy was born.

It is thus rather facetious to claim slavery had NOTHING to do with the war. It was, in fact, the major issue. Second only to the preserving of the Union.

You were right.

According to the Declarations of Secession (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Mississippi) and the "Cornerstone Speech (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76)" of Confederate VP Alexandar Stephens, the South was built on the cornerstone of slavery. It was to protect that cornerstone and to be able to expand it that the Confederacy was born.

It is thus rather facetious to claim slavery had NOTHING to do with the war. It was, in fact, the major issue. Second only to the preserving of the Union.

Amen... The "South" seceeded (spelling?) because Honest Abe was elected. The "South" was afraid that he would make slavery illegal and they seceeded.

Slavery was a big issue, but you can't reasonably say it was "all about slavery", just like you can't reasonably say that "slavery was just a side note."

The U.S. Civil War had many contributing factors: slavery, states rights, regionalism/sectionalism, economics, etc. Just like WWI- alliances, nationalism, etc. You can't say that one thing was the sole or primary factor in either war- to do so is to take a childs eye view of history.

In New York mobs opposed to conscription killed black people in the streets because they blamed them for causing the civil war. Sort of sounds like the people of the time were convinced slavery had something to do with it.

Secession was caused by slavery, but the war was caused by Lincoln's desire to stop the South from seceding.

The prevailing opinion in the North prior to Fort Sumter was to let the South go.

it was pretty much all about slavery.

anything else could be worked out. slavery is an all or nothing issue

which is really sad considering that the vast majority of southerners who fought and died for the confederacy never owned slaves.

Slavery was a big issue, but you can't reasonably say it was "all about slavery", just like you can't reasonably say that "slavery was just a side note."

The U.S. Civil War had many contributing factors: slavery, states rights, regionalism/sectionalism, economics, etc. Just like WWI- alliances, nationalism, etc. You can't say that one thing was the sole or primary factor in either war- to do so is to take a childs eye view of history.

There is a rather significant difference between saying that no one thing was the "sole" factor and saying that nothing was the "primary factor."

The nation at the time -- particularly the Confederacy -- seemed to think slavery was a primary issue. Read the documents I linked to -- there are many more I could link. The State of Mississippi officially declared: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." VP Stevens said: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition."

To say that slavery was the sole issue may be "to take a child's eye view of history" but so is to deny it was the primary issue.

It is even more ridiculous to say, as CSW's teacher apparently did, that slavery wasn't the issue at all.

Saying that the cause of the war was economics and not slavery does not compute. A huge portion of the South's economy was slaved based. Slaves were something like one quater of the population. The economic difference was in the North you could own machines but had to pay people. In the South you could own people.

I will state that if there had never been slavery in the United States, with all other things being equal, there would never have been a civil war.

Sort of sounds like the people of the time were convinced slavery had something to do with it.

Change 'slavery' to 'WMD' and you've got something similar today.

Basically, I was in my AP US history class reviewing for the exam, and my oh so wonderful teacher decided to discuss the civil war with us. Mainly, she repeated (for the second time) that the civil war had NOTHING to do with slavery. I, of course, objected (I kept quiet the first time but I had had enough by then), saying that the position she was taking was...wrong.


Was I correct, or do I need to relearn history? Can all of the major issues (fugitive slave, slavery in washington DC, slavery in territories, tariffs) be traced back to slavery, or was slavery just the "straw that broke the camels back", so to speak.


Oh, and she threw me out of class for saying that she was wrong. :D

she threw you out of class eh?

did you...uh...flame her?

Change 'slavery' to 'WMD' and you've got something similar today.
Yes, except the South actually did have slaves.

she threw you out of class eh?

did you...uh...flame her?
I said she was wrong (and then proceeded to justify), so she threw me out for disrespecting authority. Or something.

I said she was wrong (and then proceeded to justify), so she threw me out for disrespecting authority. Or something.
when i went to highschool the teacher would have sold her soul for a kid who would actually debate history. i would think it would be very welcome in an AP class. maybe she was having a bad day?

There is a rather significant difference between saying that no one thing was the "sole" factor and saying that nothing was the "primary factor."

The nation at the time -- particularly the Confederacy -- seemed to think slavery was a primary issue. Read the documents I linked to -- there are many more I could link. The State of Mississippi officially declared: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." VP Stevens said: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition."

To say that slavery was the sole issue may be "to take a child's eye view of history" but so is to deny it was the primary issue.

I disagree. Slavery was the primary cause of secession. Not the war. The war had many factors; but states rights and sectionalism trump the "slavery is just plain ol wrong" issue.

While it is definitely incorrect to say that slavery was a non-issue, it is also incorrect to say it was the most important issue. The South had been considering secession since the 1820s due to the steady loss of political power to the North. Agreements were made to keep the South in the Union for the time being, but the conflict grew. From taxes and tariffs to economics to slavery the North and South almost invariably differed on every issue. Then the straw that broke the camel's back was President Lincoln's election. In the South a large majority of the ballots didn't even include his name. But he still got elected, despite losing the entire South by landslide after landslide. And his position on slavery was to halt it (not abolish it, he did not make that his goal until the war was already raging). The South saw this as a way for the Northern "free" states to make sure they kept control of the country. And so, to deal with the fact that they were no longer a force in the Union, they seceeded. And the rest is history.

I said she was wrong (and then proceeded to justify), so she threw me out for disrespecting authority. Or something.
And if you were my kid, I'd be up in the principal's (or Department chair's, if this is college) grill, because that's bullshit--both the teacher tossing you and the fact that she's playing the slavery apologist card in a history class. To claim that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil war is ludicrous. It's the kind of argument white supremacists use to justify flying the Confederate battle flag today. Hell, if anyone ought to be tossed from the class, it's the teacher for making such a stupid statement.

straw that broke the camels back

It was an accumulation of many factors, but slavery was one of the big ones.

Also remember the Tariff of Abominations, John C. Calhoun, Conflicts over Manifest Destiny, the Ostend Manifesto, the Mexican War, Bloody Kansas, and the other "incidents" that helped lead up to the secession of the Southern States.

Good luck on the test. I'll be suffering through it as well.

But obviously its wack that she threw you out. Sue her bitch ass

But obviously its wack that she threw you out. Sue her bitch ass
Lol, nothing so dramatic, I'm mostly just looking for the vindication.


I mean, really. The document evidence against the idea that the civil war was not about slavery is so heavy that it's almost impossible to think that someone can honestly claim otherwise.

does your classroom have a computer with an internet connection?

if so, tell her you want to show her something. and then google "declaration of secession" - any of the first page results will do.

I disagree. Slavery was the primary cause of secession. Not the war. The war had many factors; but states rights and sectionalism trump the "slavery is just plain ol wrong" issue.

Don't you think secession was a primary factor in the war? :headbang:

Pray tell how "states rights" was an issue after secession. You just contradicted yourself.

does your classroom have a computer with an internet connection?

if so, tell her you want to show her something. and then google "declaration of secession" - any of the first page results will do.
Oh, I have eight pages of primary documents to support my point. I think that bringing it up again will end up in a detention though, and I don't feel like spoiling my record...


I think the crittenden compromise is the best argument for slavery being the main cause of the civil war. The one document supported by the south as being the cure for all of the protests they had against the United States simply does not mention tariffs (or any other economics issue) at all.

Don't you think secession was a primary factor in the war? :headbang:

Pray tell how "states rights" was an issue after secession. You just contradicted yourself.

*sigh*

No, Linclon's refusal to allow the southern states to exert their rights and leave the union triggered the war. Lincoln denied them those rights, and started a war to keep them from having them.

I disagree. Slavery was the primary cause of secession. Not the war. The war had many factors; but states rights and sectionalism trump the "slavery is just plain ol wrong" issue.

I think this is splitting hairs. Without secession there would be no civil war. If I exagerate this sort of argument to a ridiculous degree I could say it wasn't my pulling the trigger that killed him it was the bullet entering his head. A more limited technical discussion about events after sucession would be a better place to discuss your point.

I think this is splitting hairs. Without secession there would be no civil war. If I exagerate this sort of argument to a ridiculous degree I could say it wasn't my pulling the trigger that killed him it was the bullet entering his head. A more limited technical discussion about events after sucession would be a better place to discuss your point.

Lincoln could have let the south go. According to the constitution, he had NO legal means of forcing them to stay.

Which is why I agree when I hear "good ol boys" refer to the civil war as the "War of Northern Aggression." Just not for the reasons they think.

Oh, I have eight pages of primary documents to support my point. I think that bringing it up again will end up in a detention though, and I don't feel like spoiling my record...

get a parent to complain to the higher authorities on the twin grounds of your teacher pushing racist mythology in class and treating you unfairly when you demonstrated their position to be completely and utterly false.

teachers and administrators alike tremble in fear of the angry parent.

Lincoln could have let the south go. According to the constitution, he had NO legal means of forcing them to stay.

Which is why I agree when I hear "good ol boys" refer to the civil war as the "War of Northern Aggression." Just not for the reasons they think.
I don't see a legal way for the south to simply leave the union. At the very least, the lot of them were committing treason, nothing better then what happened during the Whiskey Rebellion. Lincoln would be perfectly within the constitution to arrest them (and using the army to supress rebellion is just arresting by other means).

Even if you are going to say that slavery was the main cause of secession and not the Civil War, you could still say it was an indirect cause of the war, if not a direct one. In that case, saying it had absolutely nothing to do with the war would still be wrong.

okay look i've argued with teachers all my life cuz history is my passion. Now i belive that the civil war is not really about slavery and it is sick that they sell it like that. the civil war is about money and greed. Simple as that. The south didn't give a **** about anything but the money. The North wasn't for freeing the slaves eather, that wasn't the reson they fought. After all they didn't know anything about the war, they didn't have slaves or know anything about them. They fought cuz the south didn't have to pay for laybor but the north did so they fought with the south. It makes you sick doesn't it.

None the less i respect that you stood up to your teacher never let somone who is in athority refuse to hear your oppinion it is your right to be heard and to defend your oppion. Always speek up for youself and you never know you might just teach the teacher somthing. Though make sure u always do it with the upmost respect. they are after all in charge.

An interesting book to check out is The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo. I'm not going to tell you that it's the gospel truth, but it's an interesting read.

Lincoln could have let the south go.

Sure the U.S. could have split into two countries. But that's no the point. The point is that slavery was a very important factor leading up to the civil war. The fact that civil war could have been avoided after sucession doesn't change that fact. For example World War Two could have been avoided after Germany invaded Poland but despite this we still generally regard the invasion of Poland as being the "cause" of the war.

okay look i've argued with teachers all my life cuz history is my passion. Now i belive that the civil war is not really about slavery and it is sick that they sell it like that. the civil war is about money and greed. Simple as that. The south didn't give a **** about anything but the money. The North wasn't for freeing the slaves eather, that wasn't the reson they fought. After all they didn't know anything about the war, they didn't have slaves or know anything about them. They fought cuz the south didn't have to pay for laybor but the north did so they fought with the south. It makes you sick doesn't it.
You know the North could have had slaves if they wanted right? If they wanted slaves so bad, they wouldn't have outlawed them. But slaves were not needed in the North because farms weren't so large that a family couldn't work one on its own. Also the work was less tedious and painful on farms in the North (cotton and tobbaco farms were not in the North). The North didn't fight the South because they felt inferior, they fought to bring the South back into the Union. And about the North "not knowing anything about slaves" is simply untrue. They knew about them, and they knew that the slaves were being treated horribly (some Northerns were abolitionists after all), in fact, most Northerns despised slavery, but thought that the South had a right to have slaves and figured they'd "grow out of it". They would have left the South alone about slavery for decades if there was no succession.
While indeed much of the conflict was economical, your ideas are far off from the truth of the situation. For someone whose "passion" is history, you don't seem to know much about it.

history is my passion. Now i belive that the civil war is not really about slavery

you should probably try harnessing that passion and actually "look things up" and "check source documents". that way you can avoid looking foolish.

Change 'slavery' to 'WMD' and you've got something similar today.
I have to agree with this.

It really depends on if you are thinking of the beginning of the war or the way the war was "sold" to the north.

In the beginning it was a states rights issue. The south still looked at the states as separate nations, the north looked at a strong Federal government. the southern soldiers, at least in the beginning, were fighting for their nation to be free of the north. The north was fighting for economics of supply of raw materials and strong government.

But, when the war started to drag on beyond the projected "mission accomplished" date, Lincoln had to have an emotional appeal to keep the poor fighting for thr rich factory owners economic interests. So, he threw slavery into the mix. Just as people wouldn't have supported an Oil and Haliburton war but would support the emotional appeal of WMD's and freedom for the oppressed.

The rich of the south were also fighting for economics but to get the poor to fight they sold the war on freedom and individual rights as well as an invasion of their nation. Today look at the "bill of rights" threads. Say 2nd amendment rights.

Living in a border slave state, I still see the divide. Not one of slavery, but of states rights and the place of the feds in the lives of the people. The foundational causes are still very evident after 150 years. Slavery, or minority rights today, is still an issue, but very much an emotional side issue.

In the beginning it was a states rights issue. The south still looked at the states as separate nations, the north looked at a strong Federal government.

which, of course, is why when various localities up north refused to return runaway slaves, the southern states cried and whined for federal intervention to make those meanies return their human property.

"states rights" reduces to "hooray for slavery". every time.

which, of course, is why when various localities up north refused to return runaway slaves, the southern states cried and whined for federal intervention to make those meanies return their human property.

"states rights" reduces to "hooray for slavery". every time.
Yep. It's all about convenience. It was all about state's rights in 2000, until it came to the Florida recount, too. Then it was a matter for federal intervention and the big 5 had to come up with a bullshit excuse to interfere.

I said she was wrong (and then proceeded to justify), so she threw me out for disrespecting authority. Or something.

This is ridiculous. You should have her FIRED. File a formal complaint.