It wasn’t about slavery, I mean yeah the vice president of the confederacy made a speech saying slavery was the cornerstone of the CSA, and multiple seceding states released documents that explicitly stated they were seceding in large part because of slavery, and all the seceding states were slave owning states, and West Virginia exists because they split from Virginia as they had no slaves and thus no reason to fight to hold them, and the CSA constitution mandated that any new state would be required to be a slave state… but… umm…
I mean they’re not entirely wrong, fighting slavery was a political tool not a moral imperative as it should have been and Lincoln didn’t in fact want to unilaterally shut it down he wanted the nation to figure it out ideally without violence.
Ed: books people, I’m not interpreting anything Lincoln was extremely vocal about it. Listen to Lincoln, he knows Lincoln weirdly enough.
History is nuanced, yes. Lost Cause bullshit and slavery apologists can GTFO tho. They’re not arguing in good faith so when you chime in to let everyone know how smart you are by supporting that nonsense, you know what it looks like, right?
Bro it’s factually correct, you can read Lincoln’s diary discussing it. The statement “the civil war was about slavery” isn’t wrong it just lacking nuance in the same way the statement I added to was.
Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.
The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest."
Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of Sangamon
You are 100% correct in your assertion that the civil war was a culmination of much more than just moral outrage over slavery, and it’s a subject worth continued study.
However, there are people who are exploiting that nuance for despicable reasons. So when you comment trying to clarify what you see as a matter of historical record, some of us see it as unhelpful because it’s continuing to provide conversational cover to those who want to use that historical record in bad faith.
It’s true, some slaves learned trade skills, but would you come in talking that ish if the OP was about the benefits of being enslaved?
It is a bit hard to distinguish between a bad faith arguing and someone who is being pedantic. Poe’s Law may parallel this. Maybe that’s what they thought?
Except it WAS about slavery as that was the primary reason why the South started the war.
Your point would be akin to saying that the Second World War in Europe wasn’t just about the Axis invasions because there are also complaints that Germany built too many telegraph lines vs what was permitted in the Treaty of Versailles. I mean yes those exist but that doesn’t change that the war was really about stopping the fascist invasions.
You didn’t prove anything because you’ve provided no evidence but rather elucidated us all to your lazy lackadaisical bad faith argument style. Try harder or you know at all if you’re going to insert yourself into things you clearly don’t understand nor have any intention to learn.
The south said ‘it’s about slavery’ as often and as clearly as possible.
People saying ‘it wasn’t about slavery’ are entirely wrong. Regardless of what Lincoln said. Pounding the table about what Lincon said is a misleading horseshit argument regardless of whether its claims are factual. It’s not fucking relevant. The issue is: the south started a war, and they started that war over slavery.
"I mean they’re not entirely wrong, fighting slavery was a political tool not a moral imperative "
In this you seem to be arguing what the North’s perspective is on the war while entirely avoiding the fact the traitor states started the war specifically about slavery. This is what people are reacting to.
It’s ABOUT slavery. Slavery was the entire root cause.
The south started a war.
The war was over slavery.
This submission is an idiot saying “the civil war wasn’t about slavery,” and you saying “they’re not entirely wrong.” They are, though. They really fucking are. If your denial of that fact is plainly not rooted in ignorance, what the fuck are you doing?
You need to develop a response to criticism besides doubling down and scrambling for some way to avoid saying “whoops.”
It was about trade played out through slavery sure.
Correct.
Correct.
Incorrect, they aren’t entirely wrong they’re not entirely right either. Please quote any part you feel is a “denial of fact” my suspicion is like everyone else you’ve jumped on board without reading the whole thing.
I’m not wrong, you’re simply confused. Historians time and time again, respected ones at that say the same thing I do and that’s ignoring the fact I quoted Lincoln about Lincoln, not my contemporary about Lincoln. I’m pretty sure dude knew his own thoughts.
Lincoln doesn’t matter - the South started the war, about slavery.
Nothing Lincoln did could possibly change that. No quote of his could be relevant. Saying so isn’t a question of veracity. The man himself could be on-record insisting slavery had nothing to do with it, and he’d be just as wrong, because the South started the war, *about slavery.
You know this is correct. You say this is correct. But then you turn away and make excuses for someone saying the complete opposite of that objective fact.
When this bigot begins “The Civil War wasn’t about slavery until the Union started losing,” that’s lost-cause bullshit, and your defense of it is inexcusable. This is bog-standard Leeaboo nonsense that you’re running interference for. ‘Surely people would have stopped Lincoln’s unpopular war’ might as well spell out “Northern Aggression” if you fold the page in half.
I’m sorry, hold on.
I almost missed that you slipped into outright Confederate propaganda.
“It was about trade played out through slavery?” Fuck right off with that, the war was about SLAVERY. In itself, for its own sake. Not because of bloodless lies like blaming “trade.” The bigotry of white supremacy was foundational! These bastards did not just want convenient free labor - they were fundamentally opposed to black people being treated as human. Quite a fucking lot of them asserted that black people, born anywhere, could never be American citizens.
Your behavior in this thread is why demands for “civility” enable toxic abuse. You can keep saying dumb shit as eruditely as possible, and everyone else has to dance around beginning a detailed condemnation with the barest hint of personal directed frustration.
“It was about trade played out through slavery?” Fuck right off with that, the war was about SLAVERY. In itself, for its own sake.
That’s just objectively wrong, dude. You need to read a history book, and not one of the 4th grade ones that always say the good guys defeated the bad guys. Nuance is a thing.
And yes, it is a thing that CAN be used to shield bigoted ideas, but that’s not what the person you responded to is doing. They’re just trying to correct you.
Our new government['s]…foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
You really think they would have fought a war and died by the tens of thousands just because they like slavery so dang much? Because they’re just that evil? They could be racist without owning slaves. Hell, they ended up doing that, for a hundred years after the Civil War. Hell, the North did that before the Civil War. Much of the North was very racist at the time, though that was in the process of changing.
The South fought to protect their slaves because their economy was built on slaves.
Yes, I think the traitors who started a war to maintain slavery are evil.
Why is that a question.
What the fuck.
These people screamed at the top of their lungs that low-key 1850s racism wasn’t nearly racist enough. That any black man being a citizen was a betrayal of the entire national experiment. And for some reason you’re searching for excuses to say it was rational economic incentives.
Bigotry is bad… mmkay? Bigots themselves don’t have to think they’re evil, and twirl their moustaches, to be really fucking evil. Obvious example, Nazis. Tell me the holocaust was really about land rights and I’ll tell you where to shove it.
Tell me the holocaust was really about land rights and I’ll tell you where to shove it.
The both of you are trying to rationalize the worst evils in the world, as if extraordinary bigotry isn’t thoroughly sufficient.
You in particular scoff, “You really think they would have fought a war and died by the tens of thousands just because they like slavery so dang much?” Like you cannot imagine shockingly violent conflict emerging from sheer hatred. In the south. A culture stereotyped for generational blood feuds. A region that if we’re brutally honest still has a problem with lynching.
All for “nuance.”
Nuance you’re blind to, when it’s me pointing out, people make these excuses as propaganda. The other guy dying on this hill keeps ranting about Lincoln for some reason and just coincidentally drops that well okay the war was about the business of dehumanizing misery. It’s just business! A perfectly reasonable dry bloodless economic incentive. Co-equal to, y’know, openly declaring black people subhuman. Both sides.
Again reaching for the hopefully obvious comparison: would you say the holocaust was about the Nazi desire to kill Jewish Germans…'s businesses? How seriously would you take someone’s insistence that they’re not doing apologism, when all they talk about is Japanese internment and lebensraum? “I don’t know why we can’t address Hitler’s vile antisemitism, and his totes sincere good-faith criticism of wealthy minorities. Why can’t both be true? Discuss.”
“I don’t know why we can’t address Hitler’s vile antisemitism, and his totes sincere good-faith criticism of wealthy minorities. Why can’t both be true? Discuss.”
Well, almost. It’s a perfectly valid thing to want to acknowledge the evil of Hitler but also the oppressive economic conditions imposed on Germany after WW1. And in a broader context, the whole buildup of HOW the Nazis gained power. They weren’t just a dark cloud of evil creatures who appeared stage right and seized power in Germany. The context is important, if for nothing else so we can learn from it.
Which is nowhere close to being a Nazi apologist.
people make these excuses as propaganda.
No one is doing that here and now. I understand being on your guard, because yes people do that. Bigots do that. Apologists do that. I agree. And when they do that, we shouldn’t get hoodwinked into discussions about nuance because they’re just a cover for making their bigoted ideas sound palatable.
But that’s not what’s happening here. Everyone in this thread that I have seen is roundly denouncing slavery and racism. We have the freedom, now, to be able to discuss nuance without worrying about whether it will be used as a shield for bigots. We don’t ALWAYS have to dismiss context and nuance - and if we do, then we won’t recognize the buildup to it next time.
Everyone in this thread that I have seen is roundly denouncing slavery and racism.
So would the asshole claiming “the civil war wasn’t about slavery.”
That’s how these excuses function as propaganda. They don’t come out and say “yay evil.” But they’re still defending evil… by degrees. The nuance of their claims is kinda fucking important.
We have the freedom, now, to be able to discuss nuance without worrying about whether it will be used as a shield for bigots.
You live on a different internet.
We don’t ALWAYS have to dismiss context and nuance
… reducing this to ‘well you just hate nuance’ is so goddamn ironic I’m not sure where to begin.
Underlining an inability to identify bigotry when it’s any less blatant than declaring an ethnicity subhuman, in as many words.
And turning it into personal insults about mental health. Real classy.
Again: even the obvious bigot we’re all bickering about would loudly insist he’s against slavery and racism. And then he’d immediately say some shit that promotes, excuses, or minimizes outright bigotry.
And you two pipe-chewing scholars would scoff, asking: what’s so racist about that obvious dogwhistle? Technically that bigot’s point about crime rates was factually correct! Are we not free to litigate whether those bad-faith justifications make valid claims before an insane conclusion? There’s no way that’s how every racist asshole launders their evil bullshit. Surely it’s not exactly how they shield their views, when they can’t outright say, “fuck the outgroup.”
Meanwhile.
Back at the distant point:
The civil war was about slavery. For its own sake. Any human conflict is going to be more complex than a single word, but few wars have ever been clearer about their overwhelming central focus. If you say the sky is blue because of light from the sun and I add “and from the stars!,” that’s how uselessly tangential it is to insist “and trade.”
Humans have done unimaginable evil for its own sake. Tell six generations they’re the only people who count, and of course number seven’s ready to end you for questioning it. You don’t count. This is unmistakable and unavoidable in strongly hierarchical honor cultures. For example: the south. Seeking a calmly reasoned explanation when a senator beats someone half to death with a walking-stick leads to “4D chess” self-delusion. Like it has to be strategic.
Like systemic violence against an entire race has to make sense without bigotry, even if you fully acknowledge there is “also” bigotry.
Describing those flimsy justifications at all requires considerable context to avoid coming off as just another racist asshole.
Using those flimsy justifications like they’re interchangeable for the actual fuuucking reason is inexcusable. And you lurched into this conversation specifically to excuse it. Feel free to stop.
even the obvious bigot we’re all bickering about would loudly insist he’s against slavery and racism
And he would obviously be lying. Racism is fairly easy to identify. For most people. Not you, of course. You see racism behind every tree, apparently.
If you say the sky is blue because of light from the sun
To make a better analogy, it’s like if someone said “the sky is blue because we can only see blue light!” The answer would be “no, but there’s a bit of truth there. The atmosphere scatters blue light more than other wavelengths, and human eyes are more attuned to blue than other colors”. Why does this matter? Because he drew the wrong conclusion from a tidbit of accurate information.
Especially since the idiot claiming we can’t see red light isn’t actually part of the conversation. Nor are any other Red Lighters. We’re just discussing something he said.
Seeking a calmly reasoned explanation when a senator beats someone half to death with a walking-stick
Are you a time traveller?
…is this “Preston Brooks” in the room with us right now?
We’re like 4 steps removed from the person who even said the quote in OP.
You can chill, you’re not about to fight off a horde of Copperheads. This is a left-leaning internet forum. There are no Klansmen here. You’re not on a crusade. Chill the fuck out. We are on the internet.
Being frothing at the mouth outraged because something happened a hundred and fifty years ago is not healthy. It’s a fixation.
No, troll, I’m using it as shorthand for how fucked-up the society we’re discussing was, around the time we’re discussing.
It is part of a direct response to a question you asked - a question you asked as smugly as possible. Like you cannot imagine systemic violence and outright war over ideology alone, and that makes me ignorant.
We’re discussing how people are lying about the war. Misleading defenses of outright lies are still basically just lies. That’s why lying racists themselves will make exactly the same defenses, when pressed. They are not married to the original lies. All they care about is finding some excuse to minimize the horrific evil that you have scoffed at.
We’re still directly talking about the civil war… as proven by your immediate follow-up comment, condescending like I missed the exact details I’ve been addressing the whole time.
All vitriol in this exchange has been about your shitty behavior. Including this: you treated contemporary reference to the south’s cultural stereotypes, by name, as a sign of mental illness. Fuck right off if you think any properly enforced leftist space would tolerate that shit.
It’s just exhausting how you keep saying this. No, we’re not. We’re trying to discuss historical facts and the glossing over of them, but you keep trying to pivot the discussion to a “racism bad, yes or no?” conversation.
Declaring “the civil war wasn’t about slavery,” verbatim, in any context, is not nuance - it is a lie. It is an indefensible oversimplification at best, and racist garbage which you have acknowledged as racist garbage at worst.
The thread is about some asshole telling this and other lies. It is that worst-case racist garbage.
The conversation you barged into involves some dingus who was trying to eke technicalities about those lies, as if anyone involved is unfamiliar with the premise being viciously misrepresented through those lies.
Your contribution has been to escalate and deny and make this personal, while declaring that you’re only carrying a torch for nuuuaaance, whilst struggling with dead simple context and being insufferably smug about how badly you missed it.
The Cornerstone Speech is in black and white, in history books and this conversation. Abusive troll. Referring to it is not even a matter of your grand claims to be a nuance understander. It’s basic reading comprehension. I am describing the aggressively obvious for-its-own-sake bigotry of the goddamn Confederacy - the central fucking topic of this post.
“the sky is blue because we can only see blue light!” The answer would be “no, but there’s a bit of truth there.”
… no, that’d be running interference for morons. Insisting “he’s not entirely wrong!” when the only sane aspect of someone’s worldview is that the sky is blue is the biggest motte-to-bailey ratio I’ve ever heard.
Thank you for making crystal clear why this thread is a trainwreck. You’re twisting complete nonsense claims by obvious idiot liars into an out-of-context interpretation of a few words they kinda said.
In the case of the OG Facebook dolt, he didn’t say “the civil war about more than slavery,” he said “the civil war WASN’T ABOUT SLAVERY, UNTIL blah blah blah.” Bog-standard Lost Cause propaganda. Picking a few words from that and going yeah-but is exactly the sort of dissembling excuse that overt racists like his dumb ass will do all the fucking time.
If you can’t spot the problem when third parties do it for him, you’re why it’s a problem.
the civil war WASN’T ABOUT SLAVERY, UNTIL blah blah blah
I feel a bit sorry for you now. It’s got to be difficult arguing against knowledge, because sometimes you’re required to show that you’re right. And that’s very hard to do if you refuse to learn history for fear of it somehow corrupting you into racism.
It’s only nuanced if you ignore all the primary evidence that it really was over the issue of slavery and almost entirely about preserving slavery.
Most of those “Well it was more nuanced because states rights and they got beneficial skills” reasons are made up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
Most of those “Well it was more nuanced because states rights and they got beneficial skills” reasons are made up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
Please quote my statements amounting to such implied accusation.
history is nuanced but your actually a Nazi if you recognize that fact…
Because not all nuance is created equal nor is it accurate. Much of the “nuance” of the civil war beyond southern cecession and the ensuing war was over the institution of slavery and its abolition are falsehoods spread by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
We have plenty of primary evidence from the cornerstone speech, to the actual confederate constitution, to letters of secession to the journal entries of soldiers who fought. None of that supports the “Well it was states rights and the soldiers didn’t know better and the south was just a peace loving society that didn’t want to hurt anyone, and the north are the real aggressors (despite the confederates firing the first shots in the first battle on Northern territory).”
But hey keep falling propaganda by apologists for a dead slaver nation-state that Hitler wrote about his admiration of in mein kampf.
It feels disingenuous to remove morality from the equation. Morality clearly played a role which is why thinkers like Frederick Douglass are still remembered to this day. Clearly there were other forces at play- political and economic which shaped how this played out, but morality was certainly involved.
Gonna get a little preachy here - skip this part if you don’t wanna hear that.
All of American history from the Revolutionary war to today can be summed up with people trying to reconcile the conflict of individual freedom and equality. Those two cannot coexist, and a boundary must be placed on one in order to allow the other ideal to flourish.
The civil war is a great example, individual freedom allows one to own another person if that is their desire. Equality says that your individual freedom cannot impede another person’s. This means slavery cannot exist in such a value system and equality was valued above individual freedom.
The current abortion debate has the same bedrock conflict. Does an individual’s personal freedom allow them the right to stop being pregnant if they wish? Well equality says the unborn child should be considered, as the choice to terminate violates their individual freedom to exist.
Let me be clear - in this post I am not advocating for either side in the abortion debate. I am merely trying to show that most of American history has been defined by trying to draw the line between the two founding principles of the nation.
Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.
The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest."
Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of Sangamon
It was a moral imperative for much of the North. Lincoln only barely scraped out the Republican nomination. His main opponent was William Seward who was a “radical” abolitionist. Had Seward won the nomination, there may have been some fracturing of the newly formed Republican party. So while there was indeed a portion of the population who felt the complete abolition of slavery was too far, a huge chunk agreed with Seward. In particular, his own wife, Francis Seward. She abhorred slavery and I urge everyone to read her writings upon the subject.
Not enough to change it by force federally, clearly. I’m well aware, that doesn’t change the fact Seward did not win and Lincoln and his supporters didn’t want radical emancipation they wanted to slow roll everything.
And to be clear the South viewed a loss of slaves to the North as a loss of property and thus trade to the North. It’s dumb and tedious but very accurate to say it was a trade dispute, a horrific hard to visualize in full one but a trade dispute none the less.
I’m neither american nor well versed in american history. That being said, from the quotes I read in your linked article about Lincoln’s views on slavery it does not seem to me that the northern states had a lot of money/resources to gain from freeing slaves in the south. So, correct me if i’m wrong, but how can you call it a trade dispute if one side views it as losing property while the other side does not view it as obtaining property?
That being said, from the quotes I read in your linked article about Lincoln’s views on slavery it does not seem to me that the northern states had a lot of money/resources to gain from freeing slaves in the south.
They wouldn’t gain money or resources no, they would instead reach a more even economical footing with the South. It’s one of those things I think I would have to provide links to because I don’t think I could adequately explain it myself.
So, correct me if i’m wrong, but how can you call it a trade dispute if one side views it as losing property while the other side does not view it as obtaining property?
I mentioned the South specifically but both sides took it as a loss of valuable property to the free North. The North in many actual laws regarding freemen specifically refer to slaves as property as does the Confederate Constitution if I’m not mistaken.
Well, I’ve had a neighbor claim I was doing things on his side of the property line, which he placed in the middle of my driveway. For him, it was a property dispute. For me, it was the ravings of a not-quite sane person. Think of it that way.
You are right, it was not a trade dispute, but the raving slave-owners would say whatever they could to justify their actions and make it sound noble. Much like Putin says he invaded Ukraine to “save them” from “embedded Nazis”. For Putin, it’s a mission of peace. For everyone else, it’s an unjustified invasion.
Did the South start the Civil War by seceding, or did the North start the Civil War by not letting them?
If the South started it by seceding, it was absolutely, unquestionably over slavery. A simple look at the various articles of secession makes that abundantly clear.
If the North started it by not letting them secede, then the Civil War was about preserving the Union, which the South was trying to leave because of slavery. The North wasn’t fighting to end slavery. The north in general may or may not have wanted that, but that wasn’t why they went to war.
The South literally declared war so that would be hard to argue plus the whole succession thing.
Correct.
Also correct, those that l two things aren’t mutually exclusive nor are they in this case. I mean they don’t particularly care about the union, they wanted to keep the territories and keep the trade. If all the people of the South wanted to leave with their slaves the North world have cheered it on and in fact did with a number of southerners who went to places like Brazil and Argentina before during and after the war. Weirdly enough much like Nazis.
You are right that Lincoln didn’t want a war and only went to war to preserve the union. The North had the votes to end slavery without war and that is how they wanted to end it.
Which is why the southern states seceded and started the war in order to preserve their right to own slaves.
This ain’t difficult, people. Photocopies of the documents from that time are easily accessible and written in modern English.
Whenever a chud gives me the “it wASnT AbOut SLavErY!” Line I always go ask them to read the seceding states articles of secession. South Carolina is my particular favorite since they started all.
 But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations… [The northern] States…have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress, or render useless any attempt to execute them… Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken…
The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
Those [non-slaveholding] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace…property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that the “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship persons, who, by the Supreme Law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive to its peace and safety.
A few years ago one of my conservative neighbors tried to drop the line on me that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. I opened up the South Carolina Articles of Succession and read it out loud to him. To his credit, he accepted it and changed his mind.
You missed that CSA states weren’t allowed to end slavery.
So if conservatives meant things when they say words - the civil war was coincidentally about slavery-having states seeking new slavery-having allies to continue doing slavery together, after flipping out when an anti-slavery party took the white house.
But it was totes mcgoats about states’ rights. Except the right to end slavery.
It was about slavery, but it wasn’t about slavery in terms of what Lincoln was trying to do initially. He would have actively allowed it to continue if it kept the nation together, but ultimately had to use it to build efforts for the war.
As I learned it in public schools long before everything became a political football, slavery was not the main focus of Lincoln’s administration initially. It was all about the constitution and the Union. The seceding states, however, had slavery very much on the top of their list of grievances. Lincoln politically embraced abolition as part of his effort to rally the unionists and gain the support of the slaves somewhere in the early stages. I don’t know if it was before or after secession. I suspect it was after the secession because he was focusing on the constitutional issues of dividing the union.
So, yes the civil war was all about slavery. The southern states wanted to expand slavery into the new territories, which was not allowed in the constitution. They wanted to protect and expand slavery as an institution. Some useful information from the Lincoln Home.
Until you read about Lincoln happening upon slave markets as a young man and having trouble controlling himself over how much it enraged him.
Imagine it as one of many things in today’s world that a politician might want to change but it’s so polarizing that they can’t actively act on it, instead electing to act on easier, smaller goals everyone might get behind.
If you read the writings of the time, they might have had trouble including abolition to their agenda, but pretty much everyone was ready to jump on board as soon as it was.
“Harmonizing the interest betwixt capital and labor, Southern slavery has solved the problem over which states-men have toiled and philanthropists mourned from the first existence of organized society” (American Cotton Planter and Soil of the South, III (1859), pp. 105-106.).
So, prepare for nuance. There is the slightest bit of truth in what they’re saying. Lincoln did not initially make the war about slavery. Yes, the south 100% did leave over slavery, but originally the war was just about getting the states back together. It still feels incredibly disingenuous to say “the war wasn’t about slavery” because of that though. For one side leaving it was, it just wasn’t about slavery to the other side yet. I’d have to see the context of this comment but I feel hard pressed to imagine it as anything other than Lost Cause propaganda.
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” -Abraham Lincoln
Honestly brings up the question, what is the big point of “the union” if he doesn’t even care about human rights. What’s so groundbreaking about the U.S. if it’s “democracy” with a big % of the population denied all rights? You’d think that’d be the highest priority.
He was definitely against slavery and that quote was in response to somebody else who had called him out for not freeing the slaves right away (www.loc.gov/resource/mal.4233400/?st=text). He actually wrote that line having already written up a preliminary version of the Emancipation Proclamation, so he knew he was going to be freeing the slaves when he wrote that.
I’m not a historian, but I think he may have been trying to obfuscate what he was doing, like he didn’t want to come right out and say that’s what he was doing. I think if at the time people in the North thought that the war was being fought over slavery and only slavery, they maybe wouldn’t have supported it and maybe would have wanted the North to back down. Even if Northerners didn’t use slavery themselves, it’s not like there wasn’t still racism all over, they wouldn’t have been as willing to sacrifice their sons to free black slaves. Again, not a historian, but that’s what I’m assuming was why he penned that.
Im confused, can you help clarify: are you saying you don’t understand basic online rhetorical approaches, or are you pro-slavery? I lean towards the former, but you do have ‘south’ in your username so its hard to be certain.
So, this annoys me to no end, because the first dude is technically right, Lincoln came in to office with no intention to outlaw slavery, although he did want to keep it confined to the states it was already legal in. And what he’s actually wrong about is that Lincoln made it about slavery to get the support of the northerners - he actually made sure that it northerners believed it was about “keeping the union together.” Remember the union still had the slave states of Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. He wanted to keep these states in the union.
Lincoln (through Seward) stressed the anti-slavery stuff to Europeans, many of whom wanted to intervene on the side of the confederacy because that was where they got their cotton. The industrial north also was a threat to industrial Europe, but the agrarian south was a source of raw materials. But by stressing the anti-slavery stuff in Europe (and then of course the emancipation proclamation which didn’t actually outlaw slavery in the border states) he ensured Europe could not intervene on behalf of the confederacy since it would be so unpopular. So, in the states it was about the union, abroad it was about slavery.
But anyway, he’s right on a technicality that, for Lincoln, it was not really about slavery. But this does not mean the war itself was not about slavery. His conclusion rests on the assumption that in a war, two sides must be diametrically opposed to one another, so if Lincoln and the north were not fighting against slavery, therefore the south could not be fighting for slavery.
But as others have pointed out, the south explicitly says they are fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. They are worried about waning political power also - if Lincoln stopped the spread of slavery across the continent as he desired, the growth of free states would mean congress would not be as evenly split between slave and free states, opening up the possibility of legislating an end to slavery.
So the war was about slavery, and would not have occurred without slavery. Often we point to the Battle of Sumter as the beginning of the civil war, but many historians also point out the popular civil war could instead be said to begin in 1859 in Harper’s Ferry, or with Bleeding Kansas and the Pottawotamie Massacre, or maybe the caning of Charles sumner or the murder of Elijah Lovejoy, or any of the political battles that arose when the US began to expand west and the question arose “what about slavery.” All of these events are directly about slavery and it would be difficult to argue otherwise.
And also, just as a last thing “many southern generals didn’t care about slavery.” I have no idea how true that is and it doesn’t matter, because the war was not fought because of southern generals but because of politicians, southern landowners, and an economy resting on the subjugation of Black people, and that’s why they were fighting.
Most Americans naturally want the war to be about slavery—and they object to allegations it’s not—because that’s the morally righteous position, which is the position they want to believe their side held. So telling them the war was about slavery for the South, but the North really didn’t give a shit, is not what they want to hear.
yeah I agree, people have a hard time hearing any criticism of Lincoln. I wouldn’t say that he “didn’t give a shit” because he was committed to stopping it’s spread into the western territories (the position that caused secession). And he did express moral opposition to slavery. But he was a moderate and felt bound by the constitution that he couldn’t actually outlaw slavery in the south, hoping that to stop its spread west would cause a gradual end to slavery as slaveowner political power wanes.
So he’s a liberal who goes to war mostly to keep the union together, and his first thought is not really about the slaves. But he did do things, like when he issues the emancipation proclamation he ensures there is a legal argument that the slaves freed by it will remain free after the war. So it’s not like Lincoln didn’t care about the slaves. He was extremely moderate, but he did hold generally anti-slavery views.
Also it’s hard to say “the north didn’t give a shit” since abolitionism was strong in the north, John Brown was celebrated in the north. There were a lot of people who cared and were extremely opposed to slavery in the north. You have soldiers singing songs celebrating John Brown. Of course this was definitely not true of everyone lol.
So I don’t think it’s fair to just say the north was completely unconcerned with slavery, but there’s a lot of complexity there, especially with Lincoln, and ultimately at the end of the day Lincoln had no plans to outlaw slavery and didn’t declare war because of slavery.
I try to always emphasize the existential threat to the South that abolishing slavery was. As another user pointed out in Mississippi’s declaration of secession, their “position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery”. If you abolish slavery, the South dies (in the economic sense, and in the cultural sense for white people) immediately. If you simply restrict slavery to this one corner of the country, the South dies slowly as its political power is curbed.
Remember the Upton Sinclair quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Similarly, people who would otherwise be on the fence about slavery were firmly in the pro-slavery camp because of the political and economic power inextricably tied to it.
That’s not to say that the South was full of reluctant slave owners or anything. It was still one of the most racist times and places in human history. The South brutalized their slaves and they enjoyed doing it, or at best were indifferent to the brutality.
The South liked slavery. But it was the economic and political threat that meant fighting was their only course of action if they wanted to survive as a socio-economic bloc at all. If it weren’t for the economic impact, they probably would have done like the North: got rid of their slaves (though not their racism…the North was extremely racist at the time too, a fact which history glosses over).
And we can see proof of this in the history of the South after they lost: abject poverty for generations. That was what they feared.
It’s way more complicated than pro-slavery vs anti-slavery. On both sides. Yes, that was a central theme but there’s an important distinction between “fighting to keep slaves” and “fighting to keep the economy built on slaves”. The former is pure evil, the latter is the same kind of evil we all promote when we buy iphones or leggings assembled by child laborers in China.
I grew up in the South and went to college in the South, so I learned all of this. But I’ve since discovered that in the rest of the country, none of this context is taught. It’s literally “these guys were all unrepentantly evil and we, the good people, defeated them”. Like a fairy tale.
Sometimes even the way slavery is taught, as if the point of slavery was to produce white supremacy rather than cotton and not the other way around, an economic system which these notions of race and white supremacy developed to explain and justify.
Then post-Civil War you have this Populist movement which condensed the interests of both black and white labor and really threatened the landowners, and out of that comes things like Booker T Washington’s “Atlantic Compromise” and notions of race relations. It isn’t really until the New Deal and the 50-60s with A. Philip Randolph and MLK Jr that you get any kind of serious civil rights connections to labor organizing again.
Rofl those were examples. It’s obviously very difficult to tell exactly what they’re producing but they definitely work in manufacturing producing goods that come to the West.
I will give you one. Just one. If after this you demand further citations, specificity, or detailed description, I will denounce you as a sealioning troll and banish you.
Third paragraph:
“The Special Rapporteur regards it as reasonable to conclude that forced labour among Uighur, Kazakh and other ethnic minorities in sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing has been occurring in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of China,” the report said.
had to look up sea-lioning, don’t think this applies since you didn’t actually provide past evidence nor am i pretending to have an honest, civil debate. I think you are someone who has heard a lot of different things, probably with the right intention, and have conflated them into one mass as if half the world’s population were not involved. so I’ve been asking you to pull apart that tangled ball of thread and see if you can’t find a kernel of truth.
in this case, you may have. after all, “is reasonable to conclude…” and “this slave is manufacturing the shit you bought at Target” are roughly the same, right?
No, of course they are not. But while I’d hoped you had the rigor to actually come up with a coherent argument, you seem not to have. I’ll save you a click and block you.
Slave owners and their drivers are unrepentantly evil in my book, there’s no amount of apologia you can offer to make me feel good about Preston Brooks or any of the big Charleston plantation owners.
On the southern side it’s really not any more complicated than being pro-slavery. Not only secession, but throughout the 19th century southern states were pushing for the continuance and expansion of slavery, and actually resisted industrial development in the south because of the threat it posed, then as you point out fought to preserve slavery. And I’d love to know the difference between fighting to keep slaves and fighting to keep an economy built on slaves, and how a southern plantation owner who owns slaves and has great sway in government (or is in government) is in any way comparable to me with no political power buying an iPhone (or other smartphone) because of the difficulty surviving in the modern world without one.
And I’m sorry, I did not realize that southerners were all given in depth lessons about bleeding Kansas and the lead up to the civil war. You must be hiding them somewhere because all I ever get from southerners is the rote memorization of basic historical facts that seem to (but don’t) contradict popular narratives of the civil war with absolutely zero historical analysis, just like the picture. I’d much rather a layperson have the northern “fairy tale” understanding of the civil war that actually gets its reasons for occurring correct, than some both sides attitude towards it. I honestly cannot believe I typed out that whole thing above and what I get in response is some sort of “nuanced” confederate apologia.
And I’d love to know the difference between fighting to keep slaves and fighting to keep an economy built on slaves
I doubt that, but I’ll play along.
First though, we should make a distinction. Most people are ignorant. If we are to leave people ignorant of history, yes the Northern fairy tale is better than the Southern one. At least then they’re not ignorant and racist. But here I’m arguing against fairy tales AT ALL.
Nuance can be weaponized, yes. That’s a poor argument for always striving against nuance and contextualizing things. I haven’t seen any pro confederate racism in this thread at all. I think we are not in danger of that happening here, now, in this conversation specifically.
I think we can afford nuance in this space. We don’t need to silence it for fear of it being weaponized by bigots. There’s very few if any bigots here, and the pro-nuance camp here doesn’t deserve to be accused of bigotry. Maaaaybe pedantry, at worst.
Back to my first point:
The difference is one of degree. The North faced a similar dilemma of pro-slavery racism vs abolitionism a hundred years prior, but without the economic or political implications. That was a pure “racism good” vs “racism bad” debate, and “racism bad” won. Not a complete victory, but enough to undo slavery and some of the worst dehumanizing aspects of racism.
If you could, today, abolish slavery and child labor without giving up your iphones and milk chocolate and cheap clothes, that’s an easy battle to undertake, morally. But you can’t extricate the economic implications. Removing yourself from consumerism is HARD. We have fought wars to protect our oil even though we know it’s bad for the planet. No, we didn’t all agree with it, but enough people put their immediate quality of life above concerns for the climate and for the well being of locals. These people, you and I included, are not all unrepentantly evil.
It’s a tradeoff. It’s a spectrum. It’s not all yes or no, black or white, good or evil.
“I will fight a war to preserve my right to be evil” is not a thing that anyone has ever thought or done. “I will fight a war to maintain my standard of living” is a thing that happens all the time, even when that standard of living is based on evil.
In many cases, the evil that the standard of life is based on is SO EVIL, it must be stopped. That’s why the North was right. I’m not making some sort of both sides bullshit argument here. The Confederacy was wrong, and should not have existed. The tradeoff between harm done and standard of living for those on top was too much, by far. It was a morally good thing that slavery was destroyed, despite the harm that came to Southern whites because of it.
But the reason for understanding all this is so we don’t fall into the trap of dehumanizing the Confederacy. They’re not cartoon villains. They had rational reasons for why they were willing to fight to preserve slavery.
“People who disagree with me are evil, full stop” is a dangerous place for one’s mind to go, and I’ll always try to combat it. With the understanding, like I mentioned above, that nuance can be weaponized, and when that happens (not before), we can take the gloves off, ignore nuance, and berate the bigots into submission. Then once the bigots are gone, we can go back to discussing nuanced and contextualized hostory.
The fact that the confederates were not cartoon characters but people makes their collective crime against humanity worse, not more sympathetic as you seem to believe.
The difference is one of degree. The North faced a similar dilemma of pro-slavery racism vs abolitionism a hundred years prior, but without the economic or political implications.
Granted, this early history of abolitionism in the north is not as much in my wheelhouse, but I have to doubt the charge that northern slavers so willingly gave up their slaves based on idealistic appeals of “racism is bad.” The real reason slavery did not gain as much of a foothold in the north is one of environment - the south is blessed with low, flat and extremely fertile plains, longer growing seasons and a warmer climate, which lends itself to agriculture and the large plantations so common in the south. The north is rocky, colder, and growing seasons are shorter. That’s not to say the north did not have large slaveowners, but the plantation economy of the south could never have existed in the north. What the north does have is harbors. While slavery might not have looked the same in the north, there were plenty of people involved in the slave trade in the north because of the importance of shipping to the northern economy. I don’t imagine the slaveowners and slave traders so willingly gave up the slave economy in the north, but slavery just never had the foothold in the north that it did in the south, and when the industrial economy gets going the north is just better suited for it, especially with its shipping capabilities, and many slave traders I imagine could be flexible since it wasn’t so much “slaves” they were tied to as “trade.”
The rest of this, I don’t know, I don’t understand the nuance you believe there should be with regards to the south. I’m not dehumanizing confederates, they were in fact all too human, which I believe is even scarier, that human beings are able to rationalize the subjugation of another human being, or rationalize themselves into supporting it. I understand exactly what you’re saying they wanted to maintain their lifestyles, privileges, and class position, but I take the opposite position which is they are bad people for doing so. And yeah maybe they were raised that way, propagandized that way, never had a chance to form differing opinions - I don’t care. At one point they were upholding slavery and maintaining it, and I’m not going to be gentle with them while Black people were being worked to death, killed, beaten, and kept in bondage through their actions.
My concern when it comes to nuance IS the dehumanizing. Removing context inevitably causes “othering” of the perpetrators. We begin to think they’re some other species, nothing like you and I or our friends. So then when it happens again it sneaks up on us.
Nuance allows us to LEARN from the tragedies of the past.
I am telling you that I am not dehumanizing confederates, and the fact that they are human makes it even worse. What is the nuance you think I need to avoid dehumanizing confederates?
That isn’t “technically correct”. His statement said the Civil War. Not Lincoln. If you want to go and support the racial ramblings of a moron on Twitter, it would help to technically correct yourself.
His entire train of thought is based on the idea that “Lincoln didn’t oppose slavery” which is “technically correct.” Except it leaves out all historical analysis which allows him to come to the fallacious conclusion that “the civil war wasn’t about slavery.”
Yes, this was literally my entire point. Did you miss this?
His conclusion rests on the assumption that in a war, two sides must be diametrically opposed to one another, so if Lincoln and the north were not fighting against slavery, therefore the south could not be fighting for slavery.
Edit: if you need it spelled out, I am implying that this is a fallacious assumption
Edit 2: to spell it out further, I am implying this is a fallacious assumption based in part on the reason you just laid out
Then you need you access your writing capabilities. Your initial response was he was “technically correct”. He is not technically correct. He’s technically stretching the truth to match click bait on a garbage platform and spew anti racism rhetoric.
Lincoln was not the only person fighting the Civil War. There were hundreds of thousands. You disrespect every soldier that died and for their causes by reducing it to two people making choices.
I took History of the United States. As an undergrad. With an emphasis on the time period. Slavery was very much part of the landscape for every single American. It is utterly inept to even try and justify it otherwise.
Most people who read my original comment seemed to have no issues with it. You however should work on your reading comprehension if you came away from it thinking that it’s justifying slavery.
Did Lincoln want to outlaw slavery? Maybe we can begin there.
I straight up don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about in the rest of this comment. Or rather, I don’t know how it’s responding in any way to my original comment.
I’m honestly concerned for your health. You seem to lack the ability to comprehend basic written English, and nearly all of your comments are rife with word salad completely unrelated to anything I’ve written. You either have some sort of brain damage, or you’ve really misjudged your own intelligence, reading comprehension, and ability to communicate using the written word
I would be concerned with your own. But don’t worry too much about mine. You aren’t smart enough to understand your mistakes or the person you are dealing with. Seriously, look into therapy. Because you cannot see what everyone else does.
Hey! Why don’t you go stick your dick in a meat grinder to ensure your genes don’t continue to pollute the human race!
The sad thing is you and I agree and have agreed this whole time, but because of your dumbass inability to admit you misunderstood me we’re here now. You’re a waste of space and every resource that has ever gone to sustaining your life, all the food and water and energy, it’s all been wasted. Truly sad to imagine. You are a leech upon this earth.
If someone means “both sides thought it was about slavery” then initially no. The south absolutely left over slavery and stuff like the fugitive slave act (“states rights” and “right to property” 💀) but originally the union was just trying to get everything back together.
That’s part of why it feels off.
Imagine this contrived metaphor. The union is a barber. The south paid for a haircut. The south says “This haircut sucks, I’m getting a refund with the bank.” Then the union says “Actually you owe me money and can’t do that.” Is it correct to say this spat is about a haircut? I’d think so, yes. Let’s say later the union decided “actually, I’m a good barber and it isn’t just about the money.” Is it correct to say the spat is now about a haircut? Definitely. So when someone says “The spat wasn’t initially about a haircut, the union didn’t care about their barber skills until later”… Is that correct? Technically. Does it make me suspicious they’re trying to spread Lost Cause of the South propaganda? It definitely makes me suspicious.
Even if both sides didn’t agree the war was about slaves originally the fucking Confederacy definitely believed it was about slavery the entire time and they were founded on slavery and mentioned it in their letters of secession and their founding documents. There’s no ambiguity about that. Everything else is just a linguistic trick of whether a war being about something means both sides have to agree what it is about.
the only thing I can think of that’s worse is the guy who stands on the sidelines, refuses to take a position and shits on everyone as though he’s contributing to the discussion.
I stopped trying to contribute to battles between reductionists many years ago, since they’re not coincidentally also binarists, so each just takes the fact that I’m not 100% in agreement with them to mean that I’m on the falsely dichotomous other side.
That’s an awful lot of why they’re so exhausting and discouraging - because I know from bitter experience that there’s absolutely nothing I can do about it. I’m constantly tempted to respond - just, if nothing else, to for instance point out that something as enormously complex as the US Civil War cannot possibly rightly be said to have been about one specific thing - but I’ve learned that that can’t possibly accomplish anything.
Should I then have just kept my mouth shut? Probably, in much the same way as I’d likely just keep walking if I saw two drunks brawling in an alley.
But I didn’t, and so be it.
And who knows? Maybe somebody somewhere will read this and think, “You know… it really is kind of dumb to reduce a complex issue to just one single idea, then get into shouting matches with people who have reduced it to some other single idea.”
Just look at the primary source documents that declare the purpose of the war, Mississippi is a good example:
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
Add comment