Col. Ty Seidule explains why the Civil War was about Slavery

Colonel Ty Seidule, a History Professor at West Point, explains in detail why all the people screaming "omg the Civil War was totally not about slavery" are wrong. He goes into detail debunking each of the talking points we have all heard on here countless times.

 

A five minute video? That is what you offer to justify your view? That's pretty funny...

 

*Insert cherry picked facts to debunk video*
Bam! Debunked.

This is one of those things that is more involved than people realize. There were several reasons states seceded. In my opinion slavery was one reason but not the only reason. There were many political issues then as there is now.

That being said I believe slavery is the most important issue to look at but it should be looked at in the context of US history and in th context of only a few years. It existed in the US before the US existed and it was about money not race. These are the facts.

People try and claim what the civil war was about to try and distance their particular region from it. Sorry but the US is just as culpable.

 

Lincoln himself said he would support slavery if it kept the Union together but that was not enough so no, the War was not about slavery. The main purpose for it was the expansion of slavery into new states which would ultimately give the North more representatives in Congress and thereby allow them to dictate terms and conditions on anything to the South if slavery was outlawed in the new states.

 

Slavery was a component whether it was in the form of economic or political purposes. I believe it is useless to argue what the main reason was. These type of situations are hardly ever cut and dry. People that want to view it in such a simplistic way are only trying to assign blame for slavery.

 

How is that not about slavery?

 

Then why do I see so many historical sources that put it in terms of race and none saying "hey, it's just about the money"? The Confederacy obviously thought it was about race.

 

You obviously did not read any of those millions of threads denigrating the South when people tried to explain the MANY reasons for the war. The North had slaves too.

 

That is because you are wearing race colored glasses. If it was about race then why were there black slave owners? Why did Africans capture and sell their own countrymen?

- - - Updated - - -

The point is it was about political power but slavery was a part of it.

 

Yes. My "race colored glasses" traveled back in time and held people at gunpoint to make them say racist things and cover up the evidence of the supposed money-only motivation that you are proposing. My "race colored glasses" wrote the laws that focused specifically on black slavery.

Because there were black slave owners . . . many of them freed slaves or the descendants of freed slaves. If it wasn't about race, then why did the Confederate Constitution specify "negro slavery" while not institutionalizing any other form of slavery?

Because white people were creating demand and paying for them. Which, like your point above, does nothing to disprove the racist background of American slavery.

[/QUOTE]

 

My question still stands. How's the war not about slavery? Whether the north had them or not.
What was the platform about in the election leading up to 1860 race?
What was one of the 1st reactions, when it was found that Lincoln and the R party of the time won?

Read these declarations and tell me slavery wasn't a major issue.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/h...fcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

The Civil War is loooooong over. You got what you wanted. The Confederate flag doesn't fly on the State House grounds. Let it die. You obviously think in black and white terms, but there are shades of gray which you don't or won't understand. This topic has been dogged to death enough, don`t you think?

 

It's funny that a five minute video is necessary to explain what most of us already know, I agree.

The video is hosted by an actual professor, and soldier, of West Point. That is what makes it different. His opinions cannot be dismissed the way the opinions of an anonymous user on the internet can.

 

Yeah, the history professor at West Point must have it all wrong. A random anonymous user on the internet will surely have far superior insight.

Yeah, he explained in detail why they were not the real reasons.

So basically, after dismissing what he said, you are now agreeing with him?

The whole video is saying "yes, the war was about slavery". Your post just said "yes the war was about slavery".

Irrelevant even if true. No one is trying to claim the North were moral paragons. Just that slavery was the reason the war was waged.

 

Because the US is a superior culture to Germany. We have no reason to fear ideas the way that they do. That is why we have no banned parties. Only weak cultures would be afraid of ideas or the voicing of ideas.

And lo and behold, look what happened. The party that once represented slavery now viciously opposes it. The superior ideology won in the end...no banning required.

 

Uh huh

Time index 3:50

[video=youtube;tqfLr2XtXf0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfLr2XtXf0[/video]

 

Were they selling can captureing white people? Were non-whites making any of the laws regarding slavery?

Thats why it was about race. There was only one race in control. It is irrelevant whether or not some of their property owned and captured other property.

Without slavery, there would have been no war. All issues came back to slavery.

 

It's not enough to let it die. I want to kick the corpse. They need to be made an example of.

In this context, there are no shades of gray. There are shades of gray on many issues, but not this one.

There is no circumstance where turning a human being into property is not evil.

Look at this thread...until everyone is in agreement, it has not been done to death.

 

Sorry, no one here has ever owned a slave. Who needs to be made an example of according to you? How has your life changed since this Confederate flag issue? We could say that the Democrats haven't changed much since slave days.

 

Sorry, but that has nothing to do with anything. You're refuting an argument nobody has made. I have no idea what the point of that statement is supposed to be.

The institution of slavery, and it's supporters and apologists. And Confederate supporters and apologists by proxy.

Yeah, actually. It is gratifying to see the rest of the country finally coming around to my point of view on the issue of the Confederacy in general, and the Confederate flag in particular. The world is a better place than it was before.

If it was relevant to anything, yeah, we could. I have no idea what you're expecting me to say. I'm not a Democrat. I have voted only Republican for the last 17 years.

The Republicans were responsible for bringing the south to heel. Whats not to like about them?

 

Right, because professors are never wrong, or tell half-truths that fit an agenda...

 

Right because a professor on the Internet can never be wrong? The northerners here like to talk (*)(*)(*)(*) about the South because we decided to take your unconstitutional tactics to task during the civil war. Slavery was legal at the time of the civil war in fact sedation was also not unconsutional until after the war. In some letters, they mentioned slavery twelve times in their letters of sedition from the union a lot of them scedded from high tariffs being leaved against the south which we did rely on for our economy........It was also over the rights of the state to make their own affairs but hey keep believin the stuff the North has rewritten about the war in the history books.

 

Mathematically, no, the chances are not zero.

But it would also be ridiculous to compare a professor of history at West Point with an anonymous person in the internet. The Professor is far more likely to know what he is talking about. Do you disagree?

 

An anonymous person like you? No doubt there is good reason not to believe everything you see online...

 

Like everyone here.

Um yeah, thats kinda the point of the thread. I am not asking you to take my word for it.