The Civil War was about slavery.

The comments after it are very interesting. The people there argue it more than it was argued in the show (and the show usually has more arguing).

I love (not at all) those who insist that slaves sold themselves into slavery! The self anointed blameless among these ancestors and beneficiaries smacks of high hubris!

I simply have no patience or ear for the so called southern humor, especially regarding southern lifestyle and culture! The conventions of the antebellum South, as in life, culture, and style are out-dated and should die a quiet death!

Joe calling a spade a spade, look in the mirror you old wind bag. Can't help yourself;'bigot' there you go again W.M.G. syndrome is evident as are those who live in denial. Why do you think the conservatives, and right-wing pundits are on the band wagon about states rights. Duh!

Sad to say, today, if there was a group you could get to work for nothing and not get bagged for it, there would be tons of people taking advantage of that and justifying it as they rake in the money. It's like not paying your taxes and spending the money on yourself. It's amazing at how well you can live when you're not paying what you're legally obligated to... "Why didn't you pay what you should?" We never say we were greedy and wanted all the money for ourselves...we justify...

Very true. We already treat migrant farm workers as near-slaves.

That was an interesting segment. I saw it last night. I think that most Southerners now agree that it was all about slavery, but a loud minority still cannot face the truth & are still fighting the "Yankees." Too bad.

Both of you are correct to reject the claims of southerners who say the war was all about states' rights. However, you are wrong to say it was all about slavery.

The main reason for fighting was to preserve the Union. Many racists in the South and in the North fought for the Union because they did not want the Union to break up and they looked upon the states that had left the Union as rebels and/or traitors to their country. Keep in mind that the South expected thirteen states where slaveholding was legal to join the Confederacy. Hence, the flag of the Confederate States of America has thirteen stars. But, in fact, two states that were expected to join the Confederacy actually fought for the Union, though they were states that allowed slavery. Why did those states fight for the Union? Did they do so because they hated slavery? Hardly! They did so because they did not want to see the Union break apart. They were both pro-slavery and pro-Union.

Also, you need to remember that many in the North were as racist as southerners who held slaves. During the New York City Draft Riots, for example, a mob burned down an orphanage for black children. Although some people in the North were truly opposed to slavery and fought in the war for that reason, others fought solely because they wanted the Union to be preserved.

One-Hundred-fifty years...still so much vitriol!

I wish there were more to celebrate!

Coming from who? Go ahead say it Joe, spit it out...Liberal. And I thank them and others for being in the forefront to bring the constitutional rights of American citizenship to the backward southern states and the other fifty states if need be. Many unsung heroes and heroins who sacrifice much, even their lives to make this happen. But then, I guess you wouldn't know much about that would you Joe.

Poor thing, some ignorance cannot be cured look it up...a image of j. shit. Aka Jericho Ringer appears on the bottom of a shoe after a mis step!

Nothing to bring to the conversation, but anger and obvious vengeance...hate will eat you alive, if there is anything unspoiled left.

Life is worth more Smiles!

What an excellent segment. I almost never watch public tv, so I'm glad you brought this to my attention.

I generally spend time each day making myself conscious of the blessings in my life. One blessing I thought of today is, that 150 years after the beginning of the Civil War, we have a black president.

I applaud your positive comment.

No, Joe. It was, in fact, a statement of fact.

"States' rights" was the excuse. The seceding states didn't want the federal government telling them they couldn't allow slavery. It's come up with other issues from time to time, when the federal government imposes a law that some states don't like.

'States Rights' think Gov. Perry of Texas when you say that. And it slowly rearing it's ugly head today as right wing conservatives wrestle down the control of the Federal Government regulations, where industrialists, corporations can get away with raping and pillaging the earth and workers rights, and to do as they see fit without paying their fair share of the tax burden. At the same time making Republican politicians if they play their cards rights, filthy rich.

As they said, many of the citizens don't agree with the historians ...

but of course generations of southern historians had no agenda

That is simply not true, Joe. The most prominent historian of the Civil War is Shelby Foote, who is a southerner. Webb Garrison is also another southerner who has written extensively about the Civil War. I am not sure about Bruce Catton, James McPherson, and Eric Foner but I wouldn't be surprised if one of them is from the South. Also, the famous Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg was a southerner.

Having said all that, I do agree with you that history should have NO agenda. I find the argument about the Civil War amazing. Was it all about states rights? No. Read the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. Was it all about slavery? No. Slavery was a major factor in causing the war but if none of the slaveholding states had left the Union, the Civil War would not have taken place when it did, if at all. What was it about, then? Preserving the Union. If you want to know why I say that, go up about 30 - 40 speech bubbles and read my comments.

States' rights was about protecting a way of life that people believed required slavery. I wish supposedly genteel folks would stop trying to paint a rosy picture of what they did and why they did it. There's a point at which denial is just ridiculous.

Good comments, tame. People are being disingenuous when they say it was all about states' rights and had nothing to do with slavery.

Here in Georgia my daughter is learning that it was totally about state's rights and their right to gov'n themselves.

It's very strange to hear history from the "southern" viewpoint, as I'm a Yankee.

Two worlds, one country! Go figure! Smiles!

states rights? Not one of the documents of secession by the confederate states made that argument as they seceded.
Now as to states rights; the South screamed that the northern states had NO RIGHTS that allowed them to pass laws protecting their citizens from the implementation of the Fugitive Slave Act which mandated return of the escaped slave from the free state harboring him or her, and severly punitive fines and possible federal jail time for those who had harbored the slave.

hey, that's just what they teach....doesn't mean I agree

Watch Gettysburg most southerns did feel they were defending state rights. Slavery was what polarized them. The federal government was trying to pass anti-slavery laws. Before then each individual state was able to control the rules of slavery. Of course the North was able to get men to volunteer for the war because many of them did see it as a war to free men. This is why Lincoln freeing the slaves after Gettysburg spoke volumes. The war was not over; the south had a different president; and still the president of the US gave black people the right to leave their oppressors. Lincoln wanted to show the south, the federal government was in the right to override the laws of the individual states.

The funny thing is the "president of the confedercy" was elected sort of unwillingly. He was retired and gardening in Mississippi when he was told he was the new president. LOL Jefferson Davis didn't ask to be president...

And from what I heard General Lee was a reluctant general too.

He was....and both of them paid dearly for taking those positions too.

In America, an "old fashioned" and "traditional" view of the Civil War was decided by romanticized white establishment Gone With The Wind-KKK-Jim Crow mindsets that wanted to sweep a lot of white vs black racial dirt under the carpet.

The South wasn't fighting for their right to grow poppies, or have 6 wives.

George Washington could have told you the Civil War was about slavery, since the founding fathers knew they had left the slavery issue unresolved, on purpose, to keep the states together at that time. They knew it would have to be dealt with at another time. And of course it was.

The unresolved slavery issue finally got resolved.

Go get 'em Joe. We certainly are feisty today! :)
Being from the south, and educated in the south, I was taught that slavery was the primary reason the southern states seceded. The secession was the reason for the war, not the slavery. Lincoln famously gave a speech, "The House Divided Speech" a full three years before the war. I agree with Joe, if the southern states had not seceded, there would not have been a war, at least not then.

Joe, most textbooks have a list in the back of the profs that wrote the various sections. Perhaps yours were written by Northerners, but every one that I have checked as my kids were miseducated were written by profs holding degrees from south of the mason dixon line, and the books usually were published in Texas or Tennessee.
Not that that proves much, I live in a town populated by old german families, and a school board packed by minister's wives.

a liberal education, is what it was called before the word became pejorative.
It's ok, your secret is safe!

"or have 6 wives" wrong war Peter.

While I consider myself to be a liberal, I think Joe has the history right. The Southern states, especially South Carolina made it clear that if Lincoln were elected President they would secede from the union, because a) they believed they had a right to, under certain conditions, and b) they were certain that President Lincoln would act strongly against their state right to own slaves. So, yes, the war was about States Rights, slavery and preservation of the union all wrapped up together.

The really big question had been slavery for decades. But after Lincoln's election the issue became the States rights to secede, and state rights in general.

What would have happened if the South had not seceded (which btw was a far from unanimous idea)? I think it is very doubtful Lincoln would have freed the slaves with a single proclamation. He would have been wanted to do it slowly and gradually to avoid the economic dislocation. But with the nation at war, the emancipation became a punishment tool as well.

There may be very telling signs in the Gettysburg speech. That battle gave the North the victory that would turn the tide, and allow Lincoln to release the Emancipation Proclamation.
Most folks jump to the Bible to figure out 'four score and seven' as the Bible says man is assigned 3 score and 10 years. But perhaps Lincoln was also alluding to the fact that the Great Compromise which allowed our nation to come into being involved the slave states being allowed to count slaves during the census as partial citizens (giving them a greater control of the house) but also mandating that 20 years after ratification (20 being a score of years) the importation of slaves could be abolished.
So rhetorically Lincoln was chastising the South for having ignored that part of the bargain 4 times over the time allotted by their own grandfathers. IMHO.

I think most of the posts have weighed in on that slavery was but a part of the reasons for the civil war.
But the Emancipation Proclamation was a turning point. This nation could not go back, after that. Then "peculiar institution" was doomed. As were the southern armies. It wasn't just the human losses at Gettysburg, it was also the tactical loss of so many leaders, and heroes. That copse of trees (or that other copse of trees- the historians still argue) was indeed aptly called the 'high water mark' of the Confederacy. Lincoln used the battleground as a stump speech short as it was, to begin the steps toward abolishing slavery.

It STARTED over state's rights, but Lincoln made it about slavery with the emancipation proclamation.

that proclamation, and the change to coinage to add 'In God We Trust' also helped galvanize the British clergy against their government's plan to back the south in hopes of a sweet deal for cotton for the British textile mills.

sorry for being so cynical, but Lincoln was in fact a very astute politician.

Take your meds, Joe. How can you expect people to listen to you when all you do is insult them? Geez.....