Here's how to look at it a little more correctly. Maybe only 1% or less of the U.S. population owned slaves. And this was confined to the wealthy landowners primarily in the South. The term 'slave' may include those who worked as domestics, drivers, cooks, farm workers, mechanics, blacksmiths, ditch diggers and plantation workers.
"By 1830 slavery was primarily located in the South... Fully 3/4 of Southern whites DID NOT own slaves. Of those who did, 88% owned 20 or less."
"In the lower South the majority of slaves lived and worked on cotton plantations. Most of these plantations had fifty or fewer slaves, although the largest plantations had several hundred."
Thanks for posting this. The winners get to write the history and the CW was not fought over slavery until Lincoln realized it would help his war against the civilians who were allowing Lee's starving, barefoot army to keep fighting. The figures for some states in the south were far lower. I've read that only 11% in Virginia owned slaves and most of those were wealthy owners of large plantations. The 89% who didn't weren't fighting so the rich guy down the road could keep his slaves. The fact that the industrial north was waging an economic war against the agrarian south was a more likely reason.
Fact 2) Much of the south made it very clear in their declarations of secession why they left. Slavery. Spelled out very clearly and directly. Others gave very little reason at all, except maybe "states rights". But given the context of the above, and speeches made by their governors before seceding, I think the reason is less allusive than we sometimes pretend. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Were there other reasons? Sure. But to say "it was not about slavery" is really just repeating the fake narrative of the left that tries to hide from their past.
Agree. The democrats of the south were very adamant about keeping slaves, and this shouldn't be forgotten. It's written in almost every document that details their secession from the US
Just because people say things doesn't mean they are telling the truth. This is especially true for politicians.
All wars are propaganda wars. Most people in the south didn't own slaves. They were motivated to go to war for two different reasons (that I have found):
to fight against a tyrannical government that was infringing on states rights and subverting the Constitution (a Treaty between Sovereign states). This was a true motivation. That was exactly what the civil war was.
to protect the economic viability of the states. People were told that if the states lost their slaves, everyone's life would collapse. This was probably less true, but it was plausible, and thus motivational to some. It also made great headlines that "official history" can selectively pull from.
So while yes, there were statements of slavery being essential for the economy, and while yes, that was a motive, it wasn't the only one, and was a use of propaganda to convince people to kill each other, "to protect their way of life."
Many of the People didn't buy it for a second. They recognized it as propaganda and felt that they would work out their economy just fine. However, they still fought over the first, because it was a tyrannical government under Lincoln, and it was a violation of the Treaty (Constitution).
Once you get past all the bullshit and propaganda from the press and the politicians, you see that the Civil War was really fought for two reasons:
One was to subjugate Sovereign States, destroying the concept of individual freedom. This was a move towards a one world government, just like the creation of the European Union, run, funded, and managed by the same people in both cases.
The other was to indebt the United States to the Banks who funded both sides. This led directly to the Gilded Age, where the entirety of government was compromised (instead of just most of it), and eventually to the complete takeover of the government by the Banks (Federal Reserve).
This is where we are today. The Civil War was how we got here.
Try reading a little history not aimed at brainwashing you. I suggest Paige Smith. Frankly, my state's legislature voted for secession with many legislators crying over the loss of the republic. And they considered the invasion of their state a major factor. And finally, read again what I wrote. I said slavery wasn't the issue UNTIL Lincoln saw a use for it.
The statistical amount of slaveowners among the southern population is not the point. The larger geopolitcal context gets ignored in these debates about whether there was just cause of the South.
The Southern economic core, centered mainly in the cotton planting oligarchs loyal to profit, was in an economic alliance with the British Empire via Free Trade and cheap labor. It was coordinated among a City of London-Wall Street-New Orleans nexus, with NOLA representing like 12% of all U.S. banking capital.
The southern slave states grew to represent the world’s fourth biggest economy through the support of the British Empire both financially and also in the logistical support needed to import mass slavery into the Americas.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was to ensure the spread of slavery west of Mississippi.
This was all another example of post-Revolutionary War strategies by the British Empire encouraging financing and supporting any means to undermine the Republic. In that mid 19th century era their specific target became the Union Nationalists including the new Republicans, still maligned today as tyrannical federalists.
So it should be a shocker to absolutely no one who looks into these things that during the entirety of the Civil War the British Empire cheerfully supplied the South with battle ships, weapons and finances to providing logistic and diplomatic support internationally. British Canada housed the Confederacy’s intelligence headquarters which deployed spying, money laundering, and terrorist operations against the Union during the entire war.
In my mother's generation, born in 1934, it was common to have servants, even for the middle class. Growing up my mom's family had a cook and a man who acted as butler, took care of the horses, drove the kids to school, etc. and a housekeeper as well. My cousins had a woman who was a nanny and housekeeper all through their growing up years. She was dear to them. My Aunt was a full time mom. (And lovely in every way. Mrs. Beaver in real life!) These weren't wealthy people in a big fancy house.
Yes. This is why I get irritated whenever I hear the term middle class. It's double speak. When politicians talk about cutting taxes for the middle class, they mean the kind of people who could have afforded slaves, or, later on, the kind of people who had butlers and nannies, but not a full staff. (IE Mr Scheffield from the Nanny).
15.6% of the population. That's a LOT more than I ever thought we had.
It reminds me of how I read that if a family had two or fewer servants in 1900, it was classified as "lower-middle class."
For having two, one, or zero servants.
Here's how to look at it a little more correctly. Maybe only 1% or less of the U.S. population owned slaves. And this was confined to the wealthy landowners primarily in the South. The term 'slave' may include those who worked as domestics, drivers, cooks, farm workers, mechanics, blacksmiths, ditch diggers and plantation workers.
"By 1830 slavery was primarily located in the South... Fully 3/4 of Southern whites DID NOT own slaves. Of those who did, 88% owned 20 or less."
"In the lower South the majority of slaves lived and worked on cotton plantations. Most of these plantations had fifty or fewer slaves, although the largest plantations had several hundred."
Source: PBS.org - Antebellum slavery 1830-1860
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html#:~:text=In%20the%20lower%20South%20the,largest%20plantations%20have%20several%20hundred.
Thanks for posting this. The winners get to write the history and the CW was not fought over slavery until Lincoln realized it would help his war against the civilians who were allowing Lee's starving, barefoot army to keep fighting. The figures for some states in the south were far lower. I've read that only 11% in Virginia owned slaves and most of those were wealthy owners of large plantations. The 89% who didn't weren't fighting so the rich guy down the road could keep his slaves. The fact that the industrial north was waging an economic war against the agrarian south was a more likely reason.
Fact 1) The Republican Party was founded, and detailed in many publications as well as its founding platform, to end slavery and polygomy. https://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htm
Fact 2) Much of the south made it very clear in their declarations of secession why they left. Slavery. Spelled out very clearly and directly. Others gave very little reason at all, except maybe "states rights". But given the context of the above, and speeches made by their governors before seceding, I think the reason is less allusive than we sometimes pretend. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Were there other reasons? Sure. But to say "it was not about slavery" is really just repeating the fake narrative of the left that tries to hide from their past.
Agree. The democrats of the south were very adamant about keeping slaves, and this shouldn't be forgotten. It's written in almost every document that details their secession from the US
Just because people say things doesn't mean they are telling the truth. This is especially true for politicians.
All wars are propaganda wars. Most people in the south didn't own slaves. They were motivated to go to war for two different reasons (that I have found):
So while yes, there were statements of slavery being essential for the economy, and while yes, that was a motive, it wasn't the only one, and was a use of propaganda to convince people to kill each other, "to protect their way of life."
Many of the People didn't buy it for a second. They recognized it as propaganda and felt that they would work out their economy just fine. However, they still fought over the first, because it was a tyrannical government under Lincoln, and it was a violation of the Treaty (Constitution).
Once you get past all the bullshit and propaganda from the press and the politicians, you see that the Civil War was really fought for two reasons:
One was to subjugate Sovereign States, destroying the concept of individual freedom. This was a move towards a one world government, just like the creation of the European Union, run, funded, and managed by the same people in both cases.
The other was to indebt the United States to the Banks who funded both sides. This led directly to the Gilded Age, where the entirety of government was compromised (instead of just most of it), and eventually to the complete takeover of the government by the Banks (Federal Reserve).
This is where we are today. The Civil War was how we got here.
THAT was why the Civil War was fought.
Try reading a little history not aimed at brainwashing you. I suggest Paige Smith. Frankly, my state's legislature voted for secession with many legislators crying over the loss of the republic. And they considered the invasion of their state a major factor. And finally, read again what I wrote. I said slavery wasn't the issue UNTIL Lincoln saw a use for it.
There's the little thing about states rights also
The statistical amount of slaveowners among the southern population is not the point. The larger geopolitcal context gets ignored in these debates about whether there was just cause of the South.
The Southern economic core, centered mainly in the cotton planting oligarchs loyal to profit, was in an economic alliance with the British Empire via Free Trade and cheap labor. It was coordinated among a City of London-Wall Street-New Orleans nexus, with NOLA representing like 12% of all U.S. banking capital.
The southern slave states grew to represent the world’s fourth biggest economy through the support of the British Empire both financially and also in the logistical support needed to import mass slavery into the Americas.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was to ensure the spread of slavery west of Mississippi.
This was all another example of post-Revolutionary War strategies by the British Empire encouraging financing and supporting any means to undermine the Republic. In that mid 19th century era their specific target became the Union Nationalists including the new Republicans, still maligned today as tyrannical federalists.
So it should be a shocker to absolutely no one who looks into these things that during the entirety of the Civil War the British Empire cheerfully supplied the South with battle ships, weapons and finances to providing logistic and diplomatic support internationally. British Canada housed the Confederacy’s intelligence headquarters which deployed spying, money laundering, and terrorist operations against the Union during the entire war.
In my mother's generation, born in 1934, it was common to have servants, even for the middle class. Growing up my mom's family had a cook and a man who acted as butler, took care of the horses, drove the kids to school, etc. and a housekeeper as well. My cousins had a woman who was a nanny and housekeeper all through their growing up years. She was dear to them. My Aunt was a full time mom. (And lovely in every way. Mrs. Beaver in real life!) These weren't wealthy people in a big fancy house.
People who are really working class have been told they are middle class.
"That's a LOT more than I ever thought we had."
"We?"
We=Americans
Don't be That Guy.
Yes. This is why I get irritated whenever I hear the term middle class. It's double speak. When politicians talk about cutting taxes for the middle class, they mean the kind of people who could have afforded slaves, or, later on, the kind of people who had butlers and nannies, but not a full staff. (IE Mr Scheffield from the Nanny).