The Debate on Slavery

Julian S. Devereux. It was common for slave owners to reward slaves who performed well with patches of land ranging up to a few acres for each family. Slaves grew marketable crops on these lands, the proceeds of which accrued to them. On Devereux's Texas plantation, slaves operating such land produced as much as 2 bales of cotton per patch. Devereux marketed their crop along with his own, and in a good year some of the slaves earned in excess of $100 per annum for their families. Devereux set up accounts to which he acredited the proceeds of the sales. Slaves drew on these accounts when they wanted cash or when they wanted Devereux to purchase clothing, pots, pans, tobacco, or similar goods for them.

The Slavery in the south is definately not what I previously thought it was. And, it sheds a little more favor on your south Mr Stuart.



this was around the time of the civil war right?

I'm surprised Oppie hasn't played the "morals" card yet. It seemed to me, that in the other topic he was consistently bringing slavery up in, that was his main arguement against it. Unless he now agrees that it wasn't at all what it has been blown up over time to be....

Stuart are you paying attention??

Yes, you made your post while I was typing mine.

Thank you, I'm glad that your opinion of the South has been improved, even if only the slightest. Even though I must admit that that's an excellent bit of evidence on the treatment of slaves. And yes, this was in the 1850s.

I'm glad they treated there slaves right, but the fact remains that's what they were, slaves.

But I think the evidence I provided fully addresses that issue, Oppie. You see, if a slave had the ability of owning his own land and earning his own money, while a slave, then basically all restraints upon him from improving his life are lifted. He has been given the means to buy his own freedom if he wishes it. You might ask, what if the Southern plantation owners wouldn't allow their slaves to even buy their own freedom? Well, I won't say that this never happened. But if a slave proposed to buy his own freedom from his master, and the master turned him down, do you think that the slave is going to work his hardest, being in a place and position that he doesn't like? The master would know this, and would most likely either make a deal with the slave, to either set a price which the slave must meet, or he would sell him to another master who would have agreed to free the slave after a given time, or some other arrangement. But the master would know that the entire difference between a working plantation and a booming plantation, is whether the slaves are motivated and happy or not. This was always the number one priority. The only point of owning a slave, is reaping the profit created by the slave. A slave was like an investment, his value peaked at the time he was strongest and capable of most work, and his value declined after this point. Slaves were also valued for any skills they possessed, such as cobbling, or smithing, and etc. They were investments on the part of the owner, and the owner's entire aim was to create a profit by the slave in return for his original investment. Thus, the owner of a plantation would most likely be more than willing to allow a slave who had done well and had a good record to buy his own freedom at the cost he was originally purchased.


But another point I'd like to make, is that the majority of slaves were happy with their lives, 1. not knowing anything better, and probably alot worse, and 2. they most likely led a better life then most middle-to-low class whites of the time, since most slaves belonged to wealthy plantation owners. Of course, some had to work in the fields, and they all had to do some form of work or another, but, doesn't everyone, white and black, have to work at some point in their lives? Of course, blacks weren't paid cash for their basic jobs, but there were many exceptions, like I pointed out earlier. Consider this, if you were a slave, and you had a family, and your own patch of land granted to you by the plantation owner, and you were always well fed, you were always well clothed, and generally content, why would you want freedom, if it would mean losing all that you had? Of course, freedom is always prefferable to slavery, but in these circumstances, which are all-important, though it may be hard to believe, it is easy to see why the negroes might have preffered their lives as they were over freedom. They were always well fed and well clothed, which is more than the average white family of the time could say. In some situations even, they had money in their pockets, their own land, and a steady job, which again is more than the average white family of the time could say. And even if the slave bought his freedom, what would he do? He'd have to look for a job. And most likely, the only thing he would know how to do very well is what he had spent all of his life doing under his master, i.e. farming, field working, etc. If he was only going to continue doing the same job, but as a free man, and with a different boss, he would find that part of the free world far more hostile than anything he had ever seen; he wouldn't have steady, dependable job like would on a plantation, he wouldn't have his next dinner guarenteed, like he would on a plantation, and he most likely would have to experience the painful reality of racism, which sadly is inavoidable in any society containing a minority and a majority. The slave would always be better off on the plantation, unless he possessed skills that would allow him to go into business for himself, and therefore make his living. This is why I think that slavery is often blown out of scope, and made out to be something that it wasn't. It may have not been peaches-and-cream, but neither is life, and it definitely wasn't the slaughterhouse it is commonly considered today.

General Stuart wrote:

But I think the evidence I provided fully addresses that issue, Oppie. You see, if a slave had the ability of owning his own land and earning his own money, while a slave, then basically all restraints upon him from improving his life are lifted. He has been given the means to buy his own freedom if he wishes it. You might ask, what if the Southern plantation owners wouldn't allow their slaves to even buy their own freedom? Well, I won't say that this never happened. But if a slave proposed to buy his own freedom from his master, and the master turned him down, do you think that the slave is going to work his hardest, being in a place and position that he doesn't like? The master would know this, and would most likely either make a deal with the slave, to either set a price which the slave must meet, or he would sell him to another master who would have agreed to free the slave after a given time, or some other arrangement. But the master would know that the entire difference between a working plantation and a booming plantation, is whether the slaves are motivated and happy or not. This was always the number one priority. The only point of owning a slave, is reaping the profit created by the slave. A slave was like an investment, his value peaked at the time he was strongest and capable of most work, and his value declined after this point. Slaves were also valued for any skills they possessed, such as cobbling, or smithing, and etc. They were investments on the part of the owner, and the owner's entire aim was to create a profit by the slave in return for his original investment. Thus, the owner of a plantation would most likely be more than willing to allow a slave who had done well and had a good record to buy his own freedom at the cost he was originally purchased.


But another point I'd like to make, is that the majority of slaves were happy with their lives, 1. not knowing anything better, and probably alot worse, and 2. they most likely led a better life then most middle-to-low class whites of the time, since most slaves belonged to wealthy plantation owners. Of course, some had to work in the fields, and they all had to do some form of work or another, but, doesn't everyone, white and black, have to work at some point in their lives? Of course, blacks weren't paid cash for their basic jobs, but there were many exceptions, like I pointed out earlier. Consider this, if you were a slave, and you had a family, and your own patch of land granted to you by the plantation owner, and you were always well fed, you were always well clothed, and generally content, why would you want freedom, if it would mean losing all that you had? Of course, freedom is always prefferable to slavery, but in these circumstances, which are all-important, though it may be hard to believe, it is easy to see why the negroes might have preffered their lives as they were over freedom. They were always well fed and well clothed, which is more than the average white family of the time could say. In some situations even, they had money in their pockets, their own land, and a steady job, which again is more than the average white family of the time could say. And even if the slave bought his freedom, what would he do? He'd have to look for a job. And most likely, the only thing he would know how to do very well is what he had spent all of his life doing under his master, i.e. farming, field working, etc. If he was only going to continue doing the same job, but as a free man, and with a different boss, he would find that part of the free world far more hostile than anything he had ever seen; he wouldn't have steady, dependable job like would on a plantation, he wouldn't have his next dinner guarenteed, like he would on a plantation, and he most likely would have to experience the painful reality of racism, which sadly is inavoidable in any society containing a minority and a majority. The slave would always be better off on the plantation, unless he possessed skills that would allow him to go into business for himself, and therefore make his living. This is why I think that slavery is often blown out of scope, and made out to be something that it wasn't. It may have not been peaches-and-cream, but neither is life, and it definitely wasn't the slaughterhouse it is commonly considered today.

Your riding the edge Stuart, I'll see you in the morning.

Well then, I'll see if I can make it on tomorrow. Merry Christmas!

Great post Jeb! and Merry Christmas to all

Glad you liked it Lee. And Merry Christmas to you too!

Alright Stuart, where is your sence of nobility? How can you try to sugar coat keeping a human being in bondage simply because they havent known anything better? The very idea that you even tried to do this makes one wonder where you stand on the very issue of human rights. Content they might have been, but happy, most certainly not! What does it say in the declaration of independance? "Which among these are Life, Libertry, and the pursuit of happiness." If you call having your entire life under the jurisdiction of another man liberty, and if you call bringing your children into a life of bondage where they could never know what freedom was like true happiness, then I dont think you really know what Liberty is. The ability to earn money and own land does not make you free. And as far as the plantation owner providing his slaves with better treatment, good for him, except he should not have any in the first place. Where was this mans concience? If he was so kind to his human oxen why didnt he think about what he was keeping them from. It's called greed, if he let them go he would lose everything. And in order to get what he wanted, he would have to take everything from each individual slave that he owned. Thats called stealing, and exploitation. And buying freedom? Please, each human is endowed with unalienable rights from birth. Its not something that should have to be purchased. And every person on this planet has unforseen gifts; how are they supposed to dicover then by tilling a field or smashing iron and bronze. By the way, looking for a job, and clearing your own path, is called life, something every slave in north america was deprived of. And um, what do you imagine was burning in the hears of every slave hmm? Do you suppose it was this, "Oh I hope I get all my work done so i can eat tommorow". I'm not sure about that Stuart. What about this? "hopefully the sun will rise and I can work another day". I think this may be closer to the truth, "One day, I hope I will be free so that my children will live in happiness." Whats that famous qoute again? "Give me liberty or give me death!"

I really dont think you can sugar coat this matter Stuart.

The Opposition wrote:

Alright Stuart, where is your sence of nobility? How can you try to sugar coat keeping a human being in bondage simply because they havent known anything better? The very idea that you even tried to do this makes one wonder where you stand on the very issue of human rights. Content they might have been, but happy, most certainly not! What does it say in the declaration of independance? "Which among these are Life, Libertry, and the pursuit of happiness." If you call having your entire life under the jurisdiction of another man liberty, and if you call bringing your children into a life of bondage where they could never know what freedom was like true happiness, then I dont think you really know what Liberty is. The ability to earn money and own land does not make you free. And as far as the plantation owner providing his slaves with better treatment, good for him, except he should not have any in the first place. Where was this mans concience? If he was so kind to his human oxen why didnt he think about what he was keeping them from. It's called greed, if he let them go he would lose everything. And in order to get what he wanted, he would have to take everything from each individual slave that he owned. Thats called stealing, and exploitation. And buying freedom? Please, each human is endowed with unalienable rights from birth. Its not something that should have to be purchased. And every person on this planet has unforseen gifts; how are they supposed to dicover then by tilling a field or smashing iron and bronze. By the way, looking for a job, and clearing your own path, is called life, something every slave in north america was deprived of. And um, what do you imagine was burning in the hears of every slave hmm? Do you suppose it was this, "Oh I hope I get all my work done so i can eat tommorow". I'm not sure about that Stuart. What about this? "hopefully the sun will rise and I can work another day". I think this may be closer to the truth, "One day, I hope I will be free so that my children will live in happiness." Whats that famous qoute again? "Give me liberty or give me death!"

I really dont think you can sugar coat this matter Stuart.

He finally did it, he played the "morals" card.

Alright Oppie, your post is very disjointed and incohesive, but I'll try to answer it anyway.

You obviously didn't understand my post, Oppie, or else you would have had most of your points answered. I didn't state one hard opinion in my last post, I only stated facts, and attempted to draw a conclusion from them. Of course, my conclusion is my own opinion and therefore my post is somewhat biased, but did I ever say "slavery is a wonderful thing that I am trying to bring back"? No, I never said that. I DID say that under the circumstances, "which are all important", it is understandable how a slave would preffer his present life to being set free. What's so hard to understand about that Oppie? It seems to me that your main problem is that you have trouble remembering that the period we're discussing is in the mid-1800s, not today. There is no legitimate way you could possibly discuss the moral aspect of slavery, because you never lived the 1800s Oppie, and neither did I. Of course, morals are NOT relative, to the time, the place, or the person, they always revert back to the Bible. And show me one place in the bible where the concept of slavery is discouraged. To my knowledge, it isn't.

Oppie, my whole point is that under the circumstances, slavery was prefferable to the slave as opposed to freedom. You were concidering what was going through the slaves' heads; allow me to concider what was going through the head's of white families living in the Kentucky Mountains who went days without a meal. I am merely saying, concidering that the slaves who were born into slavery had no choice in the matter, they were pretty darn lucky. Oppie, my point was, given the choice between a secure home, a steady job, and three meals a day, every day, and fending for yourself in a country you don't even really belong in, I can understand why the great majority of slaves would choose the former. I'm sure everyone appreciated your sentimental bits Oppie, but they aren't relevant. You're trying to apply today's standards on a situation that existed 150 years ago. You cannot do this and get a clear picture of the scenario as it was.


EDIT: I cannot stress to you enough Oppie, CIRCUMSTANCES, CIRCUMSTANCES, CIRCUMSTANCES. Appreciate them for what they are, or else you can never understand the situation. Realize that this was a different time, with different moral standards. And beyond that, white people of the time, right or wrong, believed blacks to be mentally inferior, and therefore their rightful place was in a position of physical labor. Such beliefs have actually been somewhat confirmed in past research. One of the most famous books to be published on the subject was The Bell Curve. That is another subject, but it leads to Abraham Lincoln's statement, quoted by Gen. Lee, that the negroes were inferior, and that he (Lincoln) was happy being in the position of the superior. The north and the people in it had no pity or love for the slave, Oppie. Your talk of "concious minded men" of the north is all for not, and irrelevant.

No matter how you word it Stuart you cannot sugar coat slave labor. I understand your points, alright. I see where your coming from, but you cant make slavery look better then what it is. It's exploitation at its heart and you know it. It wasnt as bad as many poeple think,yes. The slaves had food, and money, yes. But they were not FREE.

And morals are traced back to the bible. And, in the old testemant people did have slaves. But, they were not "slaves", they were servants that were cosidered a part of the family it served, more like a butler or a maid. Exploitation was discouraged, oppresion was discouraged. Dont presume to think that the bible encourages slavery. And poeple that were enslaved, were prisoners of war, thats called punishment for crime. And it's discouaged all throughout the bible, you would see if you take the time to read it.

And its certainly understandable why a slave might prefer bondage over freedom, like you said before, he doesnt know any better. But that doesnt make it right, nor does it lessen what slavery is. So stop trying to use that line to make slavery seem less repulsive.


By the way what happened to,
"Of course, morals are NOT relative, to the time, the place, or the person, they always revert back to the Bible."
So much for different time different morals, you are contradicting yourself.




"That is another subject, but it leads to Abraham Lincoln's statement, quoted by Gen. Lee, that the negroes were inferior, and that he (Lincoln) was happy being in the position of the superior. The north and the people in it had no pity or love for the slave, Oppie. Your talk of "concious minded men" of the north is all for not, and irrelevant."

I never said anything about the north, I was talking about slavery in general. That's one of the reasons I question Lincoln, There are a lot of things about the man that I dont know and cant understand, but they dont look very good. Thats BESIDE the point anyways, this is the slavery topic not the north vs south topic.


Look Stuart, I know your just analzing what you see, but everything is not so black and white.


your friend, Oppie.

I accidentally deleted this post, so I'll try to do it again below. And believe me, I've punished myself accordingly.

Dear Oppie,
If I were captured and brought to a foreign land or if I was a desendent of some one who was captured and brought to this foreign land, and if I was treated as kindly as atleast some of the slaves in the South were, honestly I would find it hard to want to be free. Also would it be my "right" to be free? No. It was wrong for me to be kidnapped yes, but my master bought me with his money, I am his, I am not my own unless he gives me my freedom. Example... We were all slaves to sin, but Christ purchased us with his blood... Do we deserve to be allowed to do what we want instead of obeying the Lord? No. He bought us and we are his slaves. (But Praise him he has elavated us to the statis of sons, but we definently dont deserve this and it is still our duty to obey him.) Really Oppie, if you want pick the sin of slavery start at its root... The pagan barbarians who (like Jeb said) enslaved each other. Also you were talking about the Declaration... "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" This argument does not work; for just as you are applying Liberty to slaves, So could be life be aplied to murderers... The Bible is the highest athority and it mandates what "unalienable rights" we possess. It commands death for murderers and it does not command liberty for slaves who want to be slaves.
Your friend General Lee,
Btw Jeb... your previous post was good.

Getting buddy buddy now aren't you Lee?

Another thing: Most of the time, the slaves weren't kidnapped by the slave traders, they were kidnapped by rival tribes.

The rival tribes would then sell them to slave traders.

Iron Brigade General wrote:

The rival tribes would then sell them to slave traders.

As Jeb has already stated in one of his previous posts. lol No Im not getting buddy buddy... I just cant pass up commenting on a good post when I see one. lol jk

Your friend General Lee

Ok, second time's the charm. Oppie, I realize that you think I"m trying to "sugar-coat" slavery, so I'll take your post and address it, one paragraph at a time, so that I might fully answer you.

The Opposition wrote:

No matter how you word it Stuart you cannot sugar coat slave labor. I understand your points, alright. I see where your coming from, but you cant make slavery look better then what it is. It's exploitation at its heart and you know it. It wasnt as bad as many poeple think,yes. The slaves had food, and money, yes. But they were not FREE.

I see, your biggest problem is with the fact that they weren't free. That's understandable. I've already stated why I think it was best for the slave to remain in slavery, given the time, place, and circumstances. And you agreed with me. So, if you truly want to find fault somewhere, look to its source. Surely, Oppie, you don't think that slaves simply popped out of the ground? They all came from somewhere else originally. In this case, the slaves were shipped to the U.S. from Africa. But how did we get them from Africa? Kidnapping? Not only do facts point against this, but so do common sense and reality. No Oppie, the Africans that were brought to America were slaves purchased from Native tribes. They had, in one way or another, forfeited their freedom. The fact that the negroes who would become slaves in America were already slaves in Africa, not helpless captives who were brought against their will, speakes volumes in my mind; the African nations almost never had a shortage of such slaves, -who were a combination of criminals and prisoners of war- due to constant inter-tribal warfare. These slaves had forfeited their freedoms, and you yourself said in the next paragraph that P.O.W.s deserved such punishment. Your statement that "But they were not FREE" doesn't fly. The Africans sold into slavery had already lost their rights, by their own actions, and therefore doomed not only themselves, but their decendents to slavery.

The Opposition wrote:

And morals are traced back to the bible. And, in the old testemant people did have slaves. But, they were not "slaves", they were servants that were cosidered a part of the family it served, more like a butler or a maid. Exploitation was discouraged, oppresion was discouraged. Dont presume to think that the bible encourages slavery. And poeple that were enslaved, were prisoners of war, thats called punishment for crime. And it's discouaged all throughout the bible, you would see if you take the time to read it.

"But, they were not 'slaves'"...

Oppie, you just threw away your entire arguement in those five words. What have I been trying to say this entire time? I do not necessarily approve of slavery, but looking back to the 1850s and the circumstances surrounding the institution, I firmly believe that it was not only in the best interests of the Africans that the practice continue, but I also believe that right and reason go against the slaves, as well as facts. So, by you admitting that at one time, slavery was acceptable because they "were not 'slaves'", you admit that slavery is not wrong in itself, but only wrong if the slave is mistreated. You have admitted already that there is substantial evidence prooving that slaves in the South were not mistreated, in fact, they were treated very well, and many were given opportunites to improve themselves, and free themselves of their enslavement, passed on to them by their ancestor. So, am I to take it that you approve of slavery as it existed in the South? I know you are hesitant to give your support to the South, but if I take your words seriously, what else am I supposed to think?

Furthermore, if you admit that morals trace directly from the Bible, you would be contesting the Word of God to oppose slavery. Of course, the Bible didn't create slavery, but it did not seek to end it either; given the circumstances, the Bible gave the institution of slavery its blessing. And remember, this was in a much more brutal time, when slaves were certainly not commonly treated like family. In fact, quite the opposite can be believed. It can be seen that God commonly promotes the image of the master and the servant, the king and the peasant, the few and the many. These are the trials in our life that He sets for us, that reveal our worth and character, and we are all ultimately responsible to Him in the end. This is why I feel that your arguement opposing the moral righteousness of slavery is unfounded.

The Opposition wrote:

And its certainly understandable why a slave might prefer bondage over freedom, like you said before, he doesnt know any better. But that doesnt make it right, nor does it lessen what slavery is. So stop trying to use that line to make slavery seem less repulsive.

Again, you're playing the morals card. If you have already admitted that slavery is fully justified in the Bible, and therefore a holy and biblical instituion, you have accepted that slavery is not immoral. One might go so far as to say that you yourself are immoral for questioning the Word of God. I won't say that, but I will say that your arguements are quite indecisive.

The Opposition wrote:

By the way what happened to,
"Of course, morals are NOT relative, to the time, the place, or the person, they always revert back to the Bible."
So much for different time different morals, you are contradicting yourself.

You misquoted me. What I said, was "different time, different standards." Morals are directly from the Bible, and therefore inchangable by mere humans, but standards are the status quo of the time, created by humans. Sadly enough, human standards commonly have more impact upon peoples' decisions than biblical morals.

I know you feel compelled by your sense of "righteousness" to oppose slavery, Oppie, but the only thing you are opposing is the warped stigma of the subject in your mind, that dominates today and covers the truth.

It appears I have failed my cause. I dont fully understand what I am trying to explain yet, therefore you have won the argument...for now. I humbly accept my defeat, Stuart. You are clearly more knowledgeable then me on certain matters and I shouldent have questioned you without being able to explain properly what I know contradicts you, for that I am sorry. Until I can bring a worthy argument to you, well done.

Thank you Oppie. You still managed to provide a stimulating debate for quite awhile, don't be too hard on yourself.

okkkkkkkkkkkkkkk OPPIE IS BACK AND BLACK. well not really.


Eh hem.

In light of the fact that only 5% of whites owned slaves in the south, let us take a insightful look into the social moral of southerners in a general sence. And how they viewed slavery. And not only that, but the moral of their leaderns and representitives. As something that was unjust? Or something that was acceptable. Please take note that this does not account for the personal views of every southerner, but the south as a whole.
As I will illoustrate by this direct qoute of Alabama secessionist E. S. Dargan.
He said that emancipation would make southerners feel "demoralized and degraded". Well theres your spokeperson for Alabama ladies and gents. Lets look at the others.

South Carolina planter and state Senator John Townsend said that "our enemies are about to take possession of the Government, that they intend to rule us according to the caprices of their fanatical theories, and according to the declared purposes of abolishing slavery."

The Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession said that the non-slave-holding states were "proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color", and that the African race "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race".

Now I've got a question for the pro-southerners in this forum about the social mindset of the people. What does this slogan mean?
"Freedom is not possible without slavery"
That does not stand well with me at all. And who said this? this was the slogan of the common poeple of the south.

Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."

Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."

Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism."

Later in the same speech he said, "The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States."


Now what is this nonsence? It sounds like the war may have had more to do with slaves then poeple like to admit. And previously, my outlook on the south was brightened. But in light of the views of their leaders and the socila mindset of its poeple, it has only been darkened.

For those of you who would say that the north was equally guilty, you are right. The north had slaves also, but take this into careful consideration. Who is justified in their action? the north, or the south? I will be back, but for now, I have a math class to get too I hope this spurs only truth.









.

and here are some more qoutes.


Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]

Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: "There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 56.]

That is so true. The South even organized a force to take Cuba by force and 'liberate' it from Spain. The only thing was, the local populace butchered the invaders.

Part of the reason Texas split from Mexico was because of the fact that Santa Anna abolished slavery. They felt that no dictator from Mexico should have any say on what they did with blacks.

Alexander Stephens said, "We have founded this nation on the divine truth that the white man is superior to the negro."

Don Lombada (historian) said this, "Salvery was the only thing that they (the north and south) were unable to compromise."

I'm not saying that it was the reason of the Civil War. But, it was a reason for the war.