First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply America Civil War (Years 1861-65) What the Real Reason to have them?!?
502 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/26/16

TheUpbringer wrote:

Slavery was pretty much bullet point #6 or #7 when talking about the reasons behind the Civil War. It hadn't even bubbled up into the common man's conscience back then until the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, where Lincoln took advantage to swing morale and ethics on his side. Only then did Slavery ever become the major focus.

Most of the reason for the Civil War was actual political differentiation. Wars involving the US are never started for trivial reasons, despite what modern social commentary dictates, it's a web of intricacies that reach a boiling point.


The number one primary reason for the Civil War was the south looking out for their economic interests.

Economics determines money and power. They did not want to grow weak. The North and the current president Abraham Lincoln threatened their very economic core. What was their economic core?

Slave labor.

They committed treason against the United States in order to preserve their economy, and in turn their power. They needed slaves and everyone knew it was slaves that drove the fight.

Abraham Lincoln famously said if he could end the war he wouldn't care if the slaves were freed or not. However, he knew very well they would be freed someday.

To say that Slavery was only unpopular during the Civil War is a misrepresentation of history.

Slavery was effectively abolished in England in 1772, four years before the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson was famously for the ending of slavery, even though he was personally a slave holder and profited from it. In 1807 Jefferson made it illegal to import slaves. It was only in 1863 that Lincoln proclaimed ONLY the slaves in the South to be free.

As another wise poster said earlier, war is about power. Economics is power. Destroying the very foundation of Southern economics would be a disaster and the south acted in self interest to preserve their economy. There is no right or wrong in such a war, only who is powerful enough to win. But let there be no doubt that the South primarily wished to save their own livelihood, that of owning slaves.
14953 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 7/26/16 , edited 7/26/16
There are not simple answers to this question. It wasn't just economics, it wasn't solely about slavery. Human history is about as complicated as it's subjects are, which is to say very. The reasons humanity wage war are multifaceted. To idealistically tout that the Civil War was only about ending slavery is incorrect and naive. To cynically state that the Civil War was actually about wealth and economic interests is just as naive and foolish despite wearing a mask of being more "realist". Wars are not fought for one reason in particular. If you insist one is, you're missing the larger mosaic for one of it's pieces.
14787 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/26/16 , edited 7/26/16

shugotenshi-atm wrote:To say that Slavery was only unpopular during the Civil War is a misrepresentation of history.
Slavery was effectively abolished in England in 1772, four years before the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson was famously for the ending of slavery, even though he was personally a slave holder and profited from it. In 1807 Jefferson made it illegal to import slaves. It was only in 1863 that Lincoln proclaimed ONLY the slaves in the South to be free.


Only because (as Spielberg's movie details), the only way he could enforce an Emancipation Proclamation during the war without a Constitutional amendment was to use the "Spoils of War" rule that any seized Confederate property became property of the Union.
Even though he was aware that technically depended upon the idea of slaves as "property", which was against the whole notion, and treating the Confederacy as an official "enemy country", which the very point of the war was to convince them they WEREN'T.
Still, it was an effective enough under-the-table emergency ploy to sneak out until the actual debates could start in Congress.

And with Jefferson prohibiting slave importation, and Britain stopping the shipping trade on the seas, no one had actually got around to banning the industry of slavery, which means that with no new slaves coming in by ship during the 1800's, plantations inside the continent had to "stud" new slaves from their existing stock, breaking up couples and families for sale and export.
Which made it just as or even more ugly a practice than the earlier days of just kidnapping a few more natives from overseas when you ran out.
42868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 7/26/16 , edited 7/26/16

geauxtigers1989 wrote:


shugotenshi-atm wrote:

I really wonder why so many people are pushing so hard to imply that it wasn't slavery? Could the bitterness of the south seep that deep into teaching history?


See the links I posted on page 1 about The Lost Cause. After the War ended, Southerners waged an extensive revisionist history campaign to make the Confederate cause seem more noble. It's been very effective.


Come now, we're the revisionists? If the Civil War were truly specifically about slavery, then why did the Emancipation Proclamation come in 1863 instead of 1861?

I will concede, however, that the myth of the Lost Cause is just that--a myth. We lost that War the same way other folks lose theirs, through p_ss-poor leadership.
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 7/26/16

moonhawk81 wrote:

If the Civil War were truly specifically about slavery, then why did the Emancipation Proclamation come in 1863 instead of 1861?

Try and keep up.
42868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 7/26/16 , edited 7/26/16

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:

If the Civil War were truly specifically about slavery, then why did the Emancipation Proclamation come in 1863 instead of 1861?

Try and keep up.


Bah! Show some respect for the old folks. Back when I was in school, we learned real history, real math (none of that "leaf and stem" bullsh_t), and still had nine planets. Seriously, how did you kids let a bunch of astro-geeks steal a whole planet?!

But point taken. I'll leave this conversation to the fleet of foot. . .

(Btw, which branch? Proudly served 8 years in the Navy, myself. Whichever branch and whatever destination, be proud, be honorable, and be careful! "Fair winds and following seas!")
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 7/26/16 , edited 7/26/16

moonhawk81 wrote:

Bah! Show some respect for the old folks. Back when I was in school, we learned real history, real math (none of that "leaf and stem" bullsh_t), and still had nine planets. Seriously, how did you kids let a bunch of astro-geeks steal a whole planet?!

But point taken. I'll leave this conversation to the fleet of foot. . .

(Btw, which branch? Proudly served 8 years in the Navy, myself. Whichever branch and whatever destination, be proud, be honorable, and be careful! "Fair winds and following seas!")

I learned "real history" in my school, too. It was only though a debate a while back that I discovered that there is much information about the civil war that I was never taught or that was manipulated to the point of being a near lie.

And decided to follow a friend into the Army. He is a combat medic, but is planning on getting re-assigned as a MP when he re-enlists.. I decided to go ATC, though.

But I can respect that. I appreciate your service!
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/26/16

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.



We should have freed the slaves, THEN fired on Fort Sumter. Lt. General James Longstreet



"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.




"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery." - First Inaugural Address Abraham Lincoln



52866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 7/27/16
Thanks everyone, it was interesting read.
9644 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 7/27/16

moonhawk81 wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:

If the Civil War were truly specifically about slavery, then why did the Emancipation Proclamation come in 1863 instead of 1861?

Try and keep up.


Bah! Show some respect for the old folks. Back when I was in school, we learned real history, real math (none of that "leaf and stem" bullsh_t), and still had nine planets. Seriously, how did you kids let a bunch of astro-geeks steal a whole planet?!

But point taken. I'll leave this conversation to the fleet of foot. . .

(Btw, which branch? Proudly served 8 years in the Navy, myself. Whichever branch and whatever destination, be proud, be honorable, and be careful! "Fair winds and following seas!")

Neil Degrasse Tyson is highly educated and well respected, and he was one of the first planetarium directors to take out Pluto. Just saying.
42868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 7/27/16 , edited 7/27/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:

If the Civil War were truly specifically about slavery, then why did the Emancipation Proclamation come in 1863 instead of 1861?




Bah! Show some respect for the old folks. Back when I was in school, we learned real history, real math (none of that "leaf and stem" bullsh_t), and still had nine planets. Seriously, how did you kids let a bunch of astro-geeks steal a whole planet?!

But point taken. I'll leave this conversation to the fleet of foot. . .

(Btw, which branch? Proudly served 8 years in the Navy, myself. Whichever branch and whatever destination, be proud, be honorable, and be careful! "Fair winds and following seas!")



Neil Degrasse Tyson is highly educated and well respected, and he was one of the first planetarium directors to take out Pluto. Just saying.


PV, I think your quote machine is broken (I tried to repair the damage). But as for Neil Degrasse Tyson--and no disrespect towards you, personally--I really don't care. It was the Pope himself (John XXIII) who instigated Vatican II, and I still think that was a load! Maybe it's just me, but the older I get, the less impressive all these impressive titles are.
9644 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 7/27/16

moonhawk81 wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:

If the Civil War were truly specifically about slavery, then why did the Emancipation Proclamation come in 1863 instead of 1861?

Try and keep up.



Bah! Show some respect for the old folks. Back when I was in school, we learned real history, real math (none of that "leaf and stem" bullsh_t), and still had nine planets. Seriously, how did you kids let a bunch of astro-geeks steal a whole planet?!

But point taken. I'll leave this conversation to the fleet of foot. . .

(Btw, which branch? Proudly served 8 years in the Navy, myself. Whichever branch and whatever destination, be proud, be honorable, and be careful! "Fair winds and following seas!")


Neil Degrasse Tyson is highly educated and well respected, and he was one of the first planetarium directors to take out Pluto. Just saying.

PV, I think your quote machine is broken. But as for Neil Degrasse Tyson--and no disrespect towards you, personally--I really don't care. It was the Pope himself (John XXIII) who instigated Vatican II, and I still think that was a load! Maybe it's just me, but the older I get, the less impressive all these impressive titles are.

I'm just saying. No disrespect towards you. I see the world of science as adapt or die. Now perhaps when you mean I don't car perhaps it was a joke ruminating on how dumb education has come, but in the case that you don't care for evidence, I would urge you to reconsider. Though you're obviously older than me and capable of handling your own business, so it would be out of place for me to intervene or something. Gah, I don't know what I'm saying anymore.
42868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 7/27/16 , edited 7/27/16

Bah! Show some respect for the old folks. Back when I was in school, we learned real history, real math (none of that "leaf and stem" bullsh_t), and still had nine planets. Seriously, how did you kids let a bunch of astro-geeks steal a whole planet?!

But point taken. I'll leave this conversation to the fleet of foot. . .

(Btw, which branch? Proudly served 8 years in the Navy, myself. Whichever branch and whatever destination, be proud, be honorable, and be careful! "Fair winds and following seas!")



Neil Degrasse Tyson is highly educated and well respected, and he was one of the first planetarium directors to take out Pluto. Just saying.



PV, I think your quote machine is broken. But as for Neil Degrasse Tyson--and no disrespect towards you, personally--I really don't care. It was the Pope himself (John XXIII) who instigated Vatican II, and I still think that was a load! Maybe it's just me, but the older I get, the less impressive all these impressive titles are.



I'm just saying. No disrespect towards you. I see the world of science as adapt or die. Now perhaps when you mean I don't car perhaps it was a joke ruminating on how dumb education has come, but in the case that you don't care for evidence, I would urge you to reconsider. Though you're obviously older than me and capable of handling your own business, so it would be out of place for me to intervene or something. Gah, I don't know what I'm saying anymore.


"Adapt or die." Well, that makes your position a little easier to understand. But I was being perfectly honest when I said I don't care. Again, all those impressive titles impress me less and less as I age. (Or maybe I'm becoming more curmudgeonly.) As for the science aspect, I'm more of an arts type (and completely happy as such), but I'm certainly as impressed as the next guy by genuine scientific achievement. I don't really see that in this instance. . .

Anyway, we seem to have gotten completely off-topic. Sorry.

Quick recap from the Moonhawk's aerie:
States' rights, yay! Federal mandate, boo!
Pluto, yay! International Astronomical Union, boo!
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/27/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:



Neil Degrasse Tyson is highly educated and well respected, and he was one of the first planetarium directors to take out Pluto. Just saying.


He is a sinner for that.

#allplanetsmatter
16271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / M
Offline
Posted 7/27/16
You can't down play the slavery issue, it was everywhere, it was causing rifts in mainstream Protestant faiths, it was splitting the Catholics and the Jews. Each contending army was sure it was on God's side.

It was economics. An industrial revolution versus a slave base agricultural society similar to the Roman Empire. It was land ownership reform, though we don't hear much about the movement for "Free Labor, Free Land, Free Men" anymore.

It was part of two different visions of the Manifest Destiny.

Men were compelled by law [The Fugitive Slave Act] to take others by force and turn them over to slavers based on flimsy evidence. The first effort to twist the Constitution into saying something it clearly did not say was an effort to pretend the Constitution did not authorize slavery.

The party of the slavers and the party of the abolitionists are still with us today with competing visions regarding the very nature of mankind. Do we need to be led by those who are better or are we all equal? Do we want technocrats to rule us? [Can you tell them apart from idiocrats? Just look how often you hear of something awful being described as an "unintended consequence"?] Do we wish to take responsibility for ourselves? Do we believe in individuality and personal freedom? Should we stand up, speak out, and do our own thing or sit down, or shut up and do what we are told? Do we want to be safe or free?

There were people that were slaves, people that were slavers, and people that could not abide slavery. Oberlin and Case Western Reserve were hot beds of radical anti-slavery thought that did not seek safe places to hide from debate, they sought confrontation with slavery. They called it Bloody Kansas because of the bloody fight over slavery. Slaver freebooters tried to seize power in Cuba and Nicaragua and other countries. The famous pony express was a successful plot to keep California free of slavery.

Slavery was big and evil.

But I am biased, my family were Union men.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.