Jeff Sessions Says Slavery Caused Civil War

[togor]

From the speech:

Though many Southerners try to say otherwise—and I love my people—slavery was the cause of the war. It was not states’ rights or tariffs or agrarian versus industrial economies. Those issues were all solvable and would have been solved. The cloud, the stain of human bondage—the buying and selling of human beings—was the unsolvable problem and was omnipresent from the beginning of the country.

Should be obvious to everyone, but somehow isn't.

[dogtag]

I thought he was dead. May as well be.

[bruce]

If and I do only say if slavery caused the War Between the States, then it begs the question ... why a war? Were these people not "property" under the law? If Lincoln really really wanted to free the slaves ... if the north was really really committed to seeing all men free, why a war? When Jefferson wanted to get control of the Mississippi and all that land that was controlled by the French, he didn't march an army out and take it by force of arms. He bought it. Yep. Plain old cash money bought what has probably been rightly called the best land deal ever made ... the Louisiana Purchase. So, back to the question. If Lincoln and his supporters were so very concerned to free all the slaves ... why did they resort to war? At even inflated valuations, every slave in the south wherever located, including the slaves held in northern states ... all of them could have easily been bought and paid for just like all those acres and acres of land that Jefferson bought and paid for with just little ole dollars. Not one single combat soldier marched. Not one single officer made a decision. Just a simple old man in the White House who ... for mom, pop and apple pie ... not to mention truth ... justice ... and the American way ... acted in the best interest of the United States. No one got killed. Imagine that. And, a good deal! What ... about $.04-.05/acre or thereabout? So ... if it is true that Lincoln and his earnest well meaning supporters only wanted to free the slaves ... why didn't they buy them and set them free? It would have been in every way so much better. Far far cheaper in terms of plain old money spent. And, far far far cheaper in terms of the human lives that were wasted by death, injury and deprivation. Now, if Lincoln and his supporters were more interested in forcing States to remain in the union due to other concerns such as political power, economic interests, etc., then it's all understandable. After all, time out of mind wars have been fought for good and for bad and for ugly reasons ... such a maintaining political power, gaining or exerting economic control, etc., etc., etc. IF that was the reason Lincoln found it necessary to go to war with the South, then it is perfectly understandable. But of course, if that is the reason, then his supposed concern for freeing the slaves begins to look like nothing so much as a tissue of a veil used to justify just another war to take and keep political power, economic interests, etc., etc., etc. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[togor]

Bruce, any blacks in your congregation?

[bruce]

Yes. In fact, with one exception, every church I have ever served since 1979 has been mixed race or chose to become a racially mixed congregation. In 1980 the first church I ever served voted a open door policy. May not seem like much nowadays. But, that sort of move was a big deal in the inner-city area where I served. In 1995 (surprising how long prejudice endures) I was forced out of a church when I refused to turn away African-American children/youth from the church I served. Incidentally ... I won the vote 92/8%. But, what's the point of winning if you destroy what took four years to build? The last 22 years ... haven't had a single time when race in my churches was a issue. Back in 2007 was warned to visit a older member of the church after we had some African-American folks join our church. I was told this man was a member of the KKK. He was. He celebrated his 95th birthday last week. Guess he's still a member of the KKK. That afternoon, I went to his house. We had coffee. We talked. I asked him what he thought of the folks who joined our church that morning. His exact and precise response was .... "Wonderful preacher! Wonderful!" Nowadays that church is about a 50/50 mix of mainly white and black members with a few of Hispanic extraction.

Now a question for you and others of this forum. What steps have you personally taken to lead in making progress for racial/social justice? Sincerely. bruce.

- - - Updated - - -

Just a thought. Was Lincoln's great concern to preserve the union ... or to free the slaves? IIRC, from what I've read his position was that if it were ultimately necessary to preserve the union, he'd accept the continuance of slavery. And that if it were necessary to preserve the union, he'd support the ending of slavery. If I am wrong, I am wrong. And again, I will stipulate that this is merely what I remember from reading a little bit on the subject. But, it appears that Lincoln's freeing of the slaves in the Southern states was animated by his overriding concern to preserve the union. Any concern to see slaves set free was of marginal concern to his desire to see the political and economic interests of the north preserved. Sincerely. bruce

Have repeatedly tried to post the above paragraph as a separate reply to this thread. It keeps coming up here. Is there any way to move it to a separate entry? Sincerely. bruce.

[clintonhater]

If Lincoln and his supporters were so very concerned to free all the slaves ... why did they resort to war? At even inflated valuations, every slave in the south wherever located, including the slaves held in northern states ... all of them could have easily been bought and paid for just like all those acres and acres of land that Jefferson bought and paid for with just little ole dollars.

I've always wondered the same thing. No doubt it would have been difficult (but not impossible) to push a "slave buy-back" bill through Congress, but the rich northern Abolitionists who were the chief agitators could have begun a program, financed by private subscription, to buy any slave offered at public auction. To make the business of using slaves to pick cotton economically unsustainable, it wouldn't have been necessary to buy every one, merely drive up the price so high that it became cheaper for plantation owners to hire free workers.

Of course, the war cost many times the value of every slave in the country north & south. But there's no doubt the radical Abolitionists, who were also for the most part religious fanatics, like John Brown, preferred war over any peaceful resolution of the problem because they believed it was God's purpose, and theirs, not merely to end slavery, but to punish the South for its sins.

- - - Updated - - -

Bruce, any blacks in your congregation?

How does that constitute a logical response to his assertion?

[bruce]

Quote Originally Posted by togor View Post
Bruce, any blacks in your congregation?
How does that constitute a logical response to his assertion?

It is a perfectly reasonable question. It deals with integrity. We have all dealt with folks who say one thing ... and do another. It's not unlike those who decry deficit spending for social programs ... but have no problems with it when the money goes to defense, law enforcement ... whatever. Sincerely. bruce.

[leftyo]

why didnt they buy them. fairly complex, but in short the south had vast farms, and the blacks were in effect their tractors. now would you sell your tractor if you were a farmer, and had no way to replace it? no you wouldnt.

[Fred]

Lincolns's Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863 was meant to free the slaves in the Northern States, of which there were many. By doing this, Washington attempted to gain the Political high ground. England was, as was the intention, put in the international position of continuing to support the Southern States (and slavery) or to stop all aid to the South. England decided to start getting their Cotton from Egypt and the South was left alone.
Abraham Lincoln didn't care about the institution of slavery any more than the people in the North. The only ones who raised complaints about it were politically motivated people.
The common Southern fighting man didn't care about the institution of slavery. Once Northern Troops had been sent into Southern territory, the deal was done. "Invasion from the North" was the cry that spread.
That was enough to galvanize the Southern populace and get them to fight.

[JB White]

Slavery caused the war? So, if that be the case why didn't ALL the slave states immediately secede? Delaware. Maryland. Kentucky. Missouri. West Virginia. Tennessee. Indian Territory. Kansas.

In 1863 five "slave states" were still remaining. Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and W. Virginia

The 1863 Emancipation Proclamation only declared the slaves should be freed in the Confederacy. A foreign country the POTUS had no authority over. The two most important reasons were:
Stopping France and England from officially recognizing the CSA and coming to direct aid. A violation of their own constitutions.
Making slaves contraband, thus being freed by occupying Union forces. A move designed to break the economic back of the already weakened CSA.
He never said outright the remaining slave states in the USA are now free. However it did change the reason for the War to a more favorable position in others eyes. Until then the concept of slavery was an issue only in the shadows and on the lips of northeastern abolitionists.

Secession began mainly due to lopsided representation, price controls on cotton, and the supposed threat of abolishing slavery. It was inevitable but it couldn't happen overnight. It would cripple state economies already being strongarmed by a coalition of northern states.
Suddenly setting a population free, without education or means of support and no time to assimilate, would be double jeopardy for all involved. Southern states could get $4 per bale more by shipping overseas. Northern textile states did not want to pay the going rate. Cotton was impounded to rot as leverage. The War itself began because the USA would not vacate CSA property until fired upon.

Those who claim the War was all about slavery and only about slavery have only read the revisionist interpretations. Slavery was a background issue at the time but not the reason for the War itself.

[Fred]

I believe that an offer was presented to Washington to accept money for the slaves in compensation for the landowners "property losses". But the powers that be in Washington actually rejected the idea of monetary compensation reasoning that it would cost too much. Few in the North I think actually believed that the Southern states would resist force and invasion and occupation very long.
Yea, right. That worked out well.
The cost to retain the Southern states within the Union cost much much more than anyone thought.

[clintonhater]

why didnt they buy them. fairly complex, but in short the south had vast farms, and the blacks were in effect their tractors. now would you sell your tractor if you were a farmer, and had no way to replace it? no you wouldnt.

Slave owners couldn't be forced to sell legally owned property, but driving up slave values by competitive bidding at public auctions would make it economically untenable to buy new ones. If your tractors become more valuable than the yield of your crops, any reasonable farmer would sell them, too.

Slaves were an expensive commodity even without competitive bidding from Abolitionists--wouldn't have taken much economic pressure to make them unaffordable except by the very rich.

[Fred]

I don't think Jeff Sessions knows anything more about the causes of the War Of Northern Agression (Lincoln's War) than he knows about why cannibus was listed as a Schedule One Drug long ago.

[steelap]

The Second American revolution is the first war lost by Americans.

[togor]

Was the cause of ending slavery just or not? Not everyone in the North took up this cause, but many did, and so the question is far from irrelevant. And at that there were shades of grey. For example, opposition to the expansion of slavery to newly-admitted states was very strong in the North, even as they accepted that the Constitution permitted slavery in states already in the union.