It was about slavery

[O-Brother]

  Teamnelson, made an important comment:  "..... it all has ensured the real issues are forgotten."  . 

The ink was still wet on the Constitution when it began to be ignored. Now it is almost entirely irrelevant. The Federals freed the slaves, but now will enslave everybody else.

   P.A.

It is amazing how Federalists today just as Federalists during the civil war CANNOT understand sovereignty of the States.  at the time of the civil war when you said State it meant Nation, This thread is very interesting,I have read many different discussions on this subject and most are the same, Federalists look at things much different than folks that believe in sovereignty of the states, personal freedom, liberty, etc.

The civil war had nothing to do with slavery.
 
Fred.

[BAGTIC]

The Emancipation Proclamatation only freed the slaves in the south because slavery in the USA was guaranteed by the Constitution. No President can amend or repeal the Constitution. If the secessionists had remained in the US they would have been guaranteed the right to keep slaves.
The President does have authority to impose regulations by presidential decree for occupied enemy territory, just as we did during the post WW2 occupation of WW2. The CSA was no longer part of the USA, their decision, and was not entitled to any legal protection during the war or Reconstruction. The former states did not automatically become states again at the cessation of hostilities. They had to apply for admission just like anyone else applying for admission.

[BAGTIC]

You sir should read the Constitution again. It is a binding contract between all parties, not just between an individual state and the federal government. Basically it says that if any state wants to be part of the federation it must agree to the terms of membership. Membership itself is voluntary and optional. If you become unhappy then you can walk.
Certain powers are to be designated to the federal government while others are reserved to the member states. No different than a million other similar agreements. For example, if you want a football team in the NFL you must agree to abide by the rules of the NFL as must all other members. If you can not abide by the rules then farewell and have a nice day. There are always some assholes who are unwilling to play by the rules. They are not team players. They think they are so special that they are above the rules. That is true in both sports and politics. They are determined to do it their way or else. Some will determine to break away and form a competing league on their own. History shows how these endeavours, sporting or political, usually end up.

[BAGTIC]

"The confederates were fighting for freedom from an oppressive tyrannical government much like their forefathers did in the revolutionary war.  No such thing as a "Civil War"..."
 
Correct.  Our Revolution with England was MUCH more a 'civil war' than the war of 1861-65, which was a failed revolution over basically the same over-bearing govenment.  But winners get to put the labels they wish on it; doesn't make it true but that's the way it gets into the winner's history books.

More nonsense. We were part of Great Britain and as part we had no legal right to secede. Therefore we went to war to gain our independence. The seven secessionist states were voluntary members of a confederation which guaranteed their right to secede. War was unnecessary. They seceded and established the CSA. There, it is done.
What would have happened if after our independence we had decided that we wanted to expand by absorbing other British territories such as Canada, the Caribbean islands, etc. Would Britain have been justified in going to war against us. Of course, we had no right to those territories.  What right did the CSA have to attack the USA? None.

[BAGTIC]

Secession, which is all SC really did regardless of motive, has been and always shall be a Constitutionally protected right of a sovereign state. The Union was voluntary. Its slightly more complicated than quitting a gym membership, true, but definitely not forbidden.

Gee. At least one thing that we agree on. All the states had and still have the right to secede. It was not secession that caused the Civil War. It was an unprovoked, unilateral attack on the United States of America. Now if all the southern rednecks feel they got screwed the first time around I suggest that they secede again. I will support their cause just as long as they keep their hands to themselves.

[williamlayton]

The states did join a Confederation and that soon showed flaws and the States changed to a constitutional Republic---one nation not 13 nations.
The arguement about a confederation falls flat in the face of the EU as it is in fact a confederation.
Blessings

[BAGTIC]

"Well, if it was about slavery why did the 'Emancipation Proclamation' free only the slaves in the South?"
Because Lincoln did not have the authority to free the slaves in the north. Slavery was LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL in the north and could only be repealed by a Constitutional Amendment. If the south had remained in the Union it would not have been possible to pass an amendment abolishing slavery as there would not have been enough votes. South Carolina and the rfest of the southern political idiots shot themselves in the foot when they seceded.
Once the states had seceded they were no long part of the USA and were neither subject to or protected by the US Constitution. The bozos had leaped out of the frying pan and into the fire.
It was not hard for the wealthy southern plantation owners in cahoots with their lapdog clergy to con the poor ignorant segment of southern society into sacricing everything they had including their lives for the sake of the southern elite.

[lgm270]

I think secession was about slavery, but the Civil War was another issue.  The North did not go to war over slavery.  It went to war to dominate the South, without whose tax revenue it could not easily fund the Union Government. 

 

[mac60]

I'm a little late here, but wanted to chime in anyway. I do agree with lgm270. Years ago I went on a school field trip with my daughter to the state capitol in Montgomery,Al. The man giving the tour discussed the civil war and secession. I don't remember every word he said, but I do remember him saying that the war was not just about slavery. He said Lincoln wasn't very popular in the south and had never visited any of the southern states and wasn't even on the ballot in some places. I don't know that to be fact, but that's what the man said.

[lgm270]

I love the way folks ASS-U-ME so much knowledge of the south having never been here or only once 40 or more years ago. Like you Richard I know of no such as he states and have lived in the south my whole life.

Big city, any southern state a white boy best be careful of where he finds himself especially at night but even in the daytime in lots of places. Blacks I'm not aware of anywhere they'd be in danger these days.

When I was growing up in Bama before the civil wrongs movement by the trouble making yankee blacks things were separate but otherwise fairly equal. We got along fine. No we didn't attend the same schools but now that they do all that has happened is the quality of education for all has suffered.

Heck I recall black boys coming up to the local elementary school and playing ball with us white boys and no one thought anything of it.

Then the northern blacks stirred up the crap and the divide widened and likely will never return to the way it was when I was growing up.

We must be about the same age because I remember the pre-civil rights America and lived and traveled in parts of the South. 

I lived in Arizona in 1960's and in '63 there was a civil rights "demonstration". They blocked an intersection and were arrested by the cops who were responsible for  keeping traffic flowing.  ALL OF THE PERSONS ARRESTED WERE FROM OUT OF STATE.  NO ARIZONA BLACKS WERE INVOLVED.

As far as separate but equal goes, California was as rigidly segregated as any place in the South.  Moreover, racial segregation continues to this day and is perfectly legal  when it benefits the blacks, such as under the Voting Rights Act which provides for black voting districts so that blacks can concentrate their votes and elect black candidates.   We also have federally funded Historical Black Colleges. 

Blacks can have their own racially segregated  voting districts, their own  racially segregated communities, their own racially segregated schools, even as they have the right to force themselves into any white community or organization with the backing of the law.

The essence of the so called "Civil Rights Movement" is the relegation of white people to second class citizenship by destroying white people's right of freedom of association, while allowing all non-whites to associate freely and form their own race based organizations and communities.  Whites are unorganized and unrepresented. 

Both slavery and the Civil Rights movement are based on the same  thing:  Violation of the right of freedom of association  of a legally subordinate race, white people, by a legally superior race, i.e. non-whites. 

I have a Dream!  I have a dream that one day white children will not be called racists and bigots for exercising the same collective racial rights of free speech and free association as currently exercised by Blacks and illegal aliens from Mexico.

[Mike in Virginia]

However horrible the war was, and even considering the deaths of so many good men, times are worse now, IMO.  I don't know of a single white community I would not enter, but the nation has lots and lots of black communites I'd not dare go into without a police escort.  Why is that? 
And why is it that only white people can be racist?  Hispanics and blacks are never racist.  No matter what kind of offense they committ on white people, it's simply illegal, but a white person doing the same thing to a black is a racist. 
Sounds like I'm a racist, right?  I'm really not.  I have no enemies that I know of.  I'm just saying that it's now politically correct to ignore reality.  Why is it that all of the U.S. prisons are way more that 50% non-white?  Why is it that no black government has ever succeeded?  Just plain facts.  But we are not to say such things.  We can use every kind of offensive term that the vilest of the vile use, we can use such words in public and on tv, but lordy, lordy, don't ever say "nigger."  I'll stand up with anyone and condemn that word, it serves no purpose other than to offend and inflame.  But any other word or phrase that offends is okay.  Example:  I am untterly disgusted when some says, "Oh, my God."  It makes me sick, as well as do all the other terms humanity has come up with to offend Christians.  But it is so readily accepted.  We hear it everyday.  Facts are facts.  We chose to ignore facts because we are cowards.  As a people, we are afraid of being labeled.  I don't say nigger or spick or Jap or any other derogatory words.  Never have, never will.  Typing such things is bad enough, but my point is made clearer, perhaps.  I have no animosity toward any human, but I despise how we have become so goody goody that we can't see through our imagined righteousness to see facts.