Paul Craig Roberts is a writer for the Institute for Political Economy and has written a piece that goes into detail about how the American Civil War was not actually fought over the issue of slavery, but over other economic and political woes that forced the hand of the Northern Union government, the feds, to offer an olive branch of sorts to the South to stop them from seceding from the Union.
Roberts writes that the North was not at all concerned about slavery as an issue at that time, even stating that they would end the ability of the Congress to alter the course of individual states’ rights when it came to slavery, which was ultimately rejected. He further notes that the South rejected the olive branch outright because this, to the South, was never about slavery and that the Civil War to come was only said to be fought over this hotly-contested issue because the North won the war and, therefore, were able to write the history.
The “court historians” as he refers to them were able to bend and shape the history in order to make the South look like a bunch of bigoted and racist slave-owners and the North to look like a bunch of saintly abolitionists.
Read on the following page, however, as Roberts’ argument, although technically correct, doesn’t really hold water when you apply the events leading up to the Civil War. It’s an interesting take on the war’s reasoning, though not original, and proves that sometimes even the “court historians” get things right!
Robert Whiz Kelley-Morgan that’s their responsibility, not society’s. That victim mentality is a huge part of the problem.
A 75% out of wedlock birth rate in that community is nobody’s fault but their own, but it is also a huge problem.
That’s why desertion skyrocketed on the Union side after the emancipation..with many of the reasons being “I don’t want to fight to free the negros” (not actually written anywhere word for word bit pretty close). As for justifying it nobody is doing that, it’s a simple statement on what was.
The North didn’t depend on any slaves and was wealthier than the South.
slaves represented a HUGE financial investment by the owners. they owned the human resources, the homes they lived in, the medical care given to them, the food given to them and more. exactly like welfare, exactly like the Democrats STILL treat the poor too lazy to improve themselves. in return for taxing the hell out of hard working folk, and giving these slugs the money/money in kind, the democrats DEMAND their vote in return, so the process can continue…..
Actually the war was over the MorrillTarif Act of 1861.It was a 40% import tax on farm implements imported from Europe by the south. Lincoln was determined to collect the tax at all costs and set up Ft Sumter as a tax collection depot and it was fired on in protest.
People just need to get over this
ya but , the war was started over states rights, linlolin said if he could persive the union with slavery he would and if it could be preserved with out slavery he would , wasn’t for a few years before it became about slavery by the north not by the south
finally someone tells the truth about the north and south.all about the riches of the south
Only America had slavery?? What about the ARAB slavery that goes ON even TODAY???