Don't like Lincoln? Oh, you must agree with this lew rockwell article! QED!

Again, pvn, this thread restarted because Ron Paul was (incorrectly, repeatedly) claiming that the North didn't try compensated emancipation and that the war could've been prevented had they been more subservient to slaveowner interests.

But the war also could've been prevented by the South not shooting at Fort Sumter.

It wasn't like it slavery was just some small part of the southern life that was off in the corner out of sight, out of mind. There were 5.5 million white southerners and 3.5 million slaves in the confederate states! Those numbers were honestly shocking to me. How could slavery be possible without widespread acceptance and complicity?

You have well over a 1/3 of your population enslaved, you have a force with a population almost 4 times your number to the North of you trying every which way to convince you to free them, and yet you continue with it. And yet you are really trying convince us it was only a small number of wealthy large plantation owners that were responsible for defending slavery? GIVE ..... ME ...... A ..... BREAK.

OK help let's pvn out here (he surely needs it). I can identify some classes of people and agents from the mid 1800s. So go ahead pvn, explain your "theories" about the Civil War in regards to these "not so overly" simplifications...

1. Black slaves
2. Native American indentured servants
3. Northern slave owners
4. Southern slave owners
5. Foreign slave owners
6. Slave drivers
7. Others who directly profited from slavery
8. USA volunteer combatants
9. USA conscripted
10. CSA volunteers combatants
11. CSA conscripted
12. Native Nations allied with USA
13. Native Nations allied with CSA
14. Foreign powers allied with USA
15. Abolitionists and fellow travelers
16. Northern pro-slavery folk
17. Northern indifferent
18. Southern pro-slavery folk
19. Southern indifferent

ahahahahaha

I mean, seriously, if you honestly believe this then Abe et al lose all of the moral high ground. The war isn't about slavery at all but instead just a big pissing contest.

lolwut

This thread is absolutely incredible. Just through and through.

I wonder how you people organize the WWII eastern front in your minds. Hitler bad, so... Stalin... good, obv. Anyone who ever said anything bad about Stalin must be a nazi!

But the war could have been prevented by the South by giving up slavery.

If they felt war was inevitable if they continued lining their dirty pockets by profiting off of slavery. Which they did... that's why they attacked the north and started the war. They could have avoided any war instead by simply freeing the slave themselves.

That was their choice, nobody make them keep holding slaves, and nobody make them drag the whole country into war. So they make two hideously immoral decisions... (a) to hold slaves, and (b) instigating the Civil War.

You were trying to convince us that alot of southerners in the war didn't deserve to die because only a small number actually owned slaves, we were oversimplifying it. I am saying the vast majority of the south helped keep slavery intact, and thus did in fact deserve to die if they still didn't gtfo the way when push came to shove.

yeah, not really

Speaking purely statistically here, you're wrong.

Just out of curiousity, which do you think was more common, for a family to own 5 or fewer slaves, or 50 or more? I understand you using the total ratio of free:slave to try to make it seem like nearly every white southern family had a slave or two, but it's far from reality. Most people who owned a single slave owned 35-50 min, some owned hundreds.

as for "defending" slavery, I'm not going to attempt to guess. But slave owners were a relatively small portion of southern population in the 1850's.

Speaking of hitler vs. stalin... I feel like that is pretty much the matchup we've got going later this afternoon. :|

Lucky for us, we do know how you view the Confederate States. 5.5 free men, 3.5 million slaves. Seems legit, no need for outside intervention, fighting to stop that would be absurd.

Yeah that's not what I said but I get how it makes things a lot easier for you to pretend.

PS: you might want to talk to Fly since he's clearly abandoned the argument that Union military action had anything to do with slaves.

So vast majority Southern deaths in the war were morally acceptable? K, cool. Over 90% of the Northern army was voluntary, so no problem there, right? Even small number of conscripts = bad, k cool we should have replaced them with black men itching to fight, cool. If your gripe is just the last sentence, then just say so, everyone will agree with you and /thread.

OK, what did Pwn_Master get wrong? What did you say?

And as long as you hate oversimplification... what are your takes on the Native Nations who were combatants, as well as Mexico's intervention?

I know that most did not own slaves. But how can one man control 20+ if his neighbors are not willing to help him defend his "right to his property"?

So we are back to the war was not really about slavery, but all the causes just happened to revolve around slavery and the South being rightfully fearful that the North was going to take away their slaves?

The emphasized part is silly. The overwhelming reason the South revolted was to preserve slavery. I thought that had been settled. This isn't an irrelevant fact that you keep forgetting here. Why is this historical reality so tricky for you to grasp?

The South -- in fighting to preserve slavery -- were bad guys. You don't have to like the actions of the North to see that.

Really loling here:

1) Now saying they are admitting it would have been just to fight to free the 3.5 million slaves from their 5.5 million oppressors.
2) However, that is not the real reason the North went to war so nanananana.
3) But if you remember earlier, they were saying war is hell so it would be best to avoid war by convincing the South to give up slavery on their own, even if it takes a little/lot longer
4) Then they take any acts by the North to do #3, which they themselves suggest, and use them for argument 2.

Really brilliant slight of hand you have going there, sorry no one is fooled.

Is this a serious question?

This is basically why libertarians are so often accused of status quo whoring.

Action = taking lives that aren't yours to dispose of
Inaction = lives that aren't anyone's to dispose of still being disposed of, but you are able to tell yourself that you're not disposing of them personally, thus non-aggression! Everyone wins except for the people getting ****ed right now.

Yes?