Is it time for South Carolina to take down the Confederate flag?

[Frood]

Funny how every history reference knows that slavery was a major reason for the civil war.

In the spring of 1861, decades of simmering tensions between the northern and southern United States over issues including states' rights versus federal authority, westward expansion and slavery exploded into the American Civil War (1861-65). The election of the anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln as president in 1860 caused seven southern states to secede from the Union to form the Confederate States of America; four more joined them after the first shots of the Civil War were fired.



In the mid-19th century, while the United States was experiencing an era of tremendous growth, a fundamental economic difference existed between the country's northern and southern regions. While in the North, manufacturing and industry was well established, and agriculture was mostly limited to small-scale farms, the South's economy was based on a system of large-scale farming that depended on the labor of black slaves to grow certain crops, especially cotton and tobacco. Growing abolitionist sentiment in the North after the 1830s and northern opposition to slavery's extension into the new western territories led many southerners to fear that the existence of slavery in america–and thus the backbone of their economy–was in danger.



In 1854, the U.S. Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which essentially opened all new territories to slavery by asserting the rule of popular sovereignty over congressional edict. Pro- and anti-slavery forces struggled violently in "Bleeding Kansas," while opposition to the act in the North led to the formation of the Republican Party, a new political entity based on the principle of opposing slavery's extension into the western territories. After the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott case (1857) confirmed the legality of slavery in the territories, the abolitionist John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry in 1859 convinced more and more southerners that their northern neighbors were bent on the destruction of the "peculiar institution" that sustained them. Lincoln's election in November 1860 was the final straw, and within three months seven southern states–South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas–had seceded from the United States.



http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history">//http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history

That didn't happen???

Not as that snippet explained it, no.



The issue was economics and States rights until succession (where slavery as an issue snuck in later in the war) because the North was losing and the lucrative profits of slave driven agriculture in the South were set to eradicate the North's manufacturing authority should Europe get raw materials directly from the South without the North getting its bigger than normal cut.

[Romero]

So there was no Kansas-Nebraska Act, "Bleeding Kansas", Dred Scott case or formation of the Republican Party? And I suppose the southern states didn't actually secede, and I suppose there was actually no slavery in the south at all!



Being ignorant of history can't change history.

[Frood]

So there was no Kansas-Nebraska Act, "Bleeding Kansas", Dred Scott case or formation of the Republican Party? And I suppose the southern states didn't actually secede, and I suppose there was actually no slavery in the south at all!



Being ignorant of history can't change history.

If you care to discuss the Whig Party, go for it.



Calling anyone else ignorant of the historical facts, well, you clamp down on that dick with buttocks apart and with a zany sense of imbalance and morbid fear of lubrication factors.

[Bricktop]

So there was no Kansas-Nebraska Act, "Bleeding Kansas", Dred Scott case or formation of the Republican Party? And I suppose the southern states didn't actually secede, and I suppose there was actually no slavery in the south at all!



Being ignorant of history can't change history.

If you care to discuss the Whig Party, go for it.



Calling anyone else ignorant of the historical facts, well, you clamp down on that dick with buttocks apart and with a zany sense of imbalance and morbid fear of lubrication factors.

Your grasp of "fact" has thus far been decidedly underwhelming. Almost absent, in fact, on matters related not only to the US, but to your own country, as evidenced by the fact that you are unaware that the Aboriginal flag has been an official Government flag for many years.



Put another way, you need to do more research before opening that hinge on the back of your neck, and thus demonstrating how much you do not know.

[RW]

I'll happily accept a source that says slavery wasn't a major issue in the civil war should someone choose to provide one ... Kiebers....

[Lance Leftardashian]

The confederate flag is a divisive flag. It should be made illegal as it supports America's shameful racist past.

[Thiel]

I'll happily accept a source that says slavery wasn't a major issue in the civil war should someone choose to provide one ... Kiebers....

The Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that righteous resolve to abolish the institution left the U.S. with no option other than a resort to arms. This is a myopic view with which many historical facts simply cannot be reconciled.



The war resulted from causes unrelated to slavery and abolition. It was entirely a consequence of the Southern states' secession. No secession and there would have been no civil war.

[@realAzhyaAryola]

Civil rights, did you say? While some flags come down, this one goes up. ac_biggrin



http://m0.i.pbase.com/g9/33/836333/2/151784760.zVpELOka.jpg">

[Bricktop]

I'll happily accept a source that says slavery wasn't a major issue in the civil war should someone choose to provide one ... Kiebers....

The Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that righteous resolve to abolish the institution left the U.S. with no option other than a resort to arms. This is a myopic view with which many historical facts simply cannot be reconciled.



The war resulted from causes unrelated to slavery and abolition. It was entirely a consequence of the Southern states' secession. No secession and there would have been no civil war.

With respect, Jimmy...you are not an authoritative source on the issue.



Point us to your references, please.

[Frood]

I'll happily accept a source that says slavery wasn't a major issue in the civil war should someone choose to provide one ... Kiebers....

The Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that righteous resolve to abolish the institution left the U.S. with no option other than a resort to arms. This is a myopic view with which many historical facts simply cannot be reconciled.



The war resulted from causes unrelated to slavery and abolition. It was entirely a consequence of the Southern states' secession. No secession and there would have been no civil war.

In a nutshell, it was a war about wealth. The South had more of it than the North and the North orchestrated wealth redistribution by refusing to recognize States rights. That slavery was a factor in the South's ability to produce and maintain wealth is not disputed. Fertile farmland and warmer climate were perhaps the two biggest plumes in their economic cap.



The North was green eyed about the South and the South had no choice but to attempt succession. The North by any moral argument should have lost the Civil War. Slavery in the South was secondary in scale to the North's aggression and the Gettysburg Address reaffirms it.

[Bricktop]

I'll happily accept a source that says slavery wasn't a major issue in the civil war should someone choose to provide one ... Kiebers....

The Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that righteous resolve to abolish the institution left the U.S. with no option other than a resort to arms. This is a myopic view with which many historical facts simply cannot be reconciled.



The war resulted from causes unrelated to slavery and abolition. It was entirely a consequence of the Southern states' secession. No secession and there would have been no civil war.

In a nutshell, it was a war about wealth. The South had more of it than the North and the North orchestrated wealth redistribution by refusing to recognize States rights. That slavery was a factor in the South's ability to produce and maintain wealth is not disputed. Fertile farmland and warmer climate were perhaps the two biggest plumes in their economic cap.



The North was green eyed about the South and the South had no choice but to attempt succession. The North by any moral argument should have lost the Civil War. Slavery in the South was secondary in scale to the North's aggression and the Gettysburg Address reaffirms it.

Its SECESSION, dumbass.



And as you are Australian, please cite your references regarding your OPINION on the cause of the American Civil War.

[Frood]

I'll happily accept a source that says slavery wasn't a major issue in the civil war should someone choose to provide one ... Kiebers....

The Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that righteous resolve to abolish the institution left the U.S. with no option other than a resort to arms. This is a myopic view with which many historical facts simply cannot be reconciled.



The war resulted from causes unrelated to slavery and abolition. It was entirely a consequence of the Southern states' secession. No secession and there would have been no civil war.

In a nutshell, it was a war about wealth. The South had more of it than the North and the North orchestrated wealth redistribution by refusing to recognize States rights. That slavery was a factor in the South's ability to produce and maintain wealth is not disputed. Fertile farmland and warmer climate were perhaps the two biggest plumes in their economic cap.



The North was green eyed about the South and the South had no choice but to attempt succession. The North by any moral argument should have lost the Civil War. Slavery in the South was secondary in scale to the North's aggression and the Gettysburg Address reaffirms it.

Its SECESSION, dumbass.



And as you are Australian, please cite your references regarding your OPINION on the cause of the American Civil War.

Thank you, Dr. Spellchecker  ac_smile



Nationality isn't important on a discussion about history and the effort of assembling references to what numerous historians have already published isn't a very pressing matter for my schedule. Google the subject of the American Civil War if you'd like to know more. The information is readily available.

[J0E]

Slavery was an issue prior to the Civil War, but obviously, not the only one.

There were a lot of others on the table, unresolved grievances, differences of opinion.

For sure, a power struggle, to see who would control the resources of the South.

And obviously, the South didn't like the deal it was gettin', and followed the example set by the 13 colony secessionists nearly a century earlier who seceded from the British Empire over taxes and control over their own intergovernmental affairs.



They thought they could do better on their own, make more money, have a higher standard of living.

Obviously, the North said No - they needed the South to make the North and the United States viable.

Otherwise without the South, they wouldn't have the resources needed to power their factories, feed their people and clothe them.

So they used their numerical superiority and money to subdue the South.