10 ms·

that's just an awful part of world history, what allowed that to flourish? total evil in men's hearts, this was only 200 years ago, not that long ago, this isn

that's just an awful part of world history, what allowed that to flourish? total evil in men's hearts, this was only 200 years ago, not that long ago, this isnt something that happened 1000 years ago. and even though the confederacy was based on slaves being unequal to whites, the civil war was not necessarily about slavery only, it was more of a split in government between a pro-agrarian society, which required large swaths of slaves, and states vs federal government. sure there were people strongly against slavery in the north like abraham lincoln and abolishinists, but i imagine a large majority in the north didnt really see that as the largest issue, it was more the south wanting to leave the united states and.form their own government.

invalidOrTaken 7y ago
>what allowed that to flourish? total evil in men's hearts To believe this is to be deceived. It leads to the idea that "I'm not 'totally evil,' thus I'm not at risk for doing something like this." But there were kind-hearted Nazis and black-hearted Allies, Stalin was reported to be a doting father, and some slaves struggled terribly after emancipation. If we don't see things clearly, we put ourselves at risk of repeating the mistakes of those we disparage, though perhaps in a different form.
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  Agreed. Seeing people as completely "evil" or "not evil" is a big mistake. For example a lot of people think that if someone has nice family and goes to church he is a "good man". But plenty of these people have committed mass murder while being nice at home.
- thephyber 7y ago
  It's also worth mentioning that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850[1] made it a crime for police and private citizens in slavery-illegal states ("the North") not to arrest and return slaves to the estate that they escaped from. In effect, the "good people" in the entire country were still culpable of the continuing existence of that "Peculiar Institution". I wonder what an average Northern jury person would think of prosecuting another Northerner who was charged with harboring a runaway slave in a Northern state (where slavery was illegal at the time). If the law says that the jury can only consider the facts of the case, not whether the law is just or moral/ethical, what are we to make of our legal system? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
  - SllX 7y ago
    The great thing about Juries is that Jury nullification necessarily exists as well. Juries are one of the most powerful institutions in the country, but they also have an extremely narrowly defined scope. Whatever the law, and whatever the facts of the case, a Jury has absolute power to find the defendant guilty or not guilty.
    - davidgay 7y ago
      It's important to note that that power goes both ways, alas. This quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States is very much on topic: "Fewer than one percent of lynch mob participants were ever convicted by local courts and they were seldom prosecuted or brought to trial. By the late 19th century, trial juries in most of the southern United States were all white because African Americans had been disenfranchised, and only registered voters could serve as jurors. Often juries never let the matter go past the inquest."
      - SllX 7y ago
        Any system of government is only as good as the culture of the people it governs. Angels don’t serve on Juries in Hell.
    - thephyber 7y ago
      Yup. Reminds me of the Scott Warren case[1] from last month. [1] https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900075129/how-giving-water-to-illegal-immigrants-religious-freedom-issue.html https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900075129/how-giving-wat...
taneq 7y ago
> total evil in men's hearts Who put it there, hmm?
- thephyber 7y ago
  Seems like a reasonable question to ask. I suspect the downvotes are because this appears to be either a useless question (because it violates dogma of the most common Christian sect in the US) or because it's seen as a "cheap shot" at those beliefs, but it still seems like an important question we need to continually struggle with. It's not like we have proven the null hypothesis.
- deckiedan 7y ago
  I suspect you're just trolling - but in case you're interested in /a/ perspective from within the broader Christian tradition... What is evil? What would "evil in men's hearts" mean? Evil as a concept can only exist if there is some kind of definition of Good, or Anti-Evil as well. If Good and Evil are both just arbitary made-up definitions by some supreme being with a control-complex, then screw everything, it's all a meaningless shitshow. Equally, if there is no Good or Evil, just physical/chemical/quantum reactions in a purely mechanical universe, then equally, screw everything. Do whatever makes the happy-chemicals in your brain do their thing. However, if there is some kind of absolute Good, and absolute Evil, and it's just figuring out what those are and mean that's the complex bit - now we have an interesting universe, and the potential for some kind of meaningful life. We all argue about whether or not there is a God - or if there is, what He/She/It/They think is Good and Evil, both in our behaviour and in theirs. But the concept of there being actions which are Good, or Right, and actions which are Evil or Wrong somehow seems baked into our outlook. We disagree about specifics, sure. It could be that for there to be the potential for Good there is also the potential for Evil. Maybe it's impossible to have Good in our hearts if there is not also Evil. So what would a supreme being want from us? To aim for good, and avoid evil, sure. We want that from each other too. And from ourselves. But there are other things too. The bible trys to say God's desired interaction with us is closest understood by the analogy of a Father/Child relationship. So as a Dad, sure, I want a bit of obedience, especially when they're young and learning... But I'd rather my kids choose Good themselves, and listen to me for advice, and decide for themselves whether or not what I say is Good. And if they disagree, but it's not going to hurt them (too much) or others, then I prefer them do something I think is wrong than them to blindly obey me. I can give them advice, direction, but the older they grow, the more what I really want from them is more and more towards a real friendship. And I believe the same is true with our interaction with God. I believe God is more interested in a relationship with us, even if we're arguing and debating with Him/Her/It/Them, than in us blinding obeying. I believe there is the potential for a much more fulfilling life by pursuing meaning (and God) than by deliberately turning our backs on the idea. Jesus said "seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you". Seems like a good advice to me. (If you want some links, Luke's gospel is an interesting place to start. Or "The Case for Christ" (The book by Lee Strobel - ignore the preachy movie) might be interesting.)
wwarner 7y ago
Um, your theory of the civil war would've been news to Ulysses Grant who sent troops to many southern states to protect the voting rights of former slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Later_Reconstruction_and_civil_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Later_Reconst... Until the Civil War, slavery was like a scar that refused to heal. What's strange is that the southern aristocracy led their fellow countrymen into a hopeless war to defend a completely corrupt and diseased economic model.
maxerickson 7y ago
Lincoln was elected in large part because he was opposed to allowing slavery in new states (a popular position in the North) and secession followed directly from his election, because the Confederate States saw limiting slavery in the territories as an existential threat to their own practice of slavery. It's also kind of funny to hand wave about how the war was about a "pro-agrarian society" instead of necessarily about slavery and then immediately toss in a mention that the pro-agrarian society "required" slavery.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- shawndumas 7y ago
  “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.” — Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley; August 22, 1862.
  - epynonymous 7y ago
    spot on!
  - bscphil 7y ago
    As I said in a comment cousin to this one, the reasons that Lincoln entered the war aren't equivalent to "the reason the war happened". What you call the "cause" of the war depends on what level you're looking at. The direct cause of the war was the Fort Sumter altercation. The reason the Fort Sumter event occurred was that both sides were angling hard for a war they thought they could easily win. The reason the Union wanted to fight the war was (mostly) that its leaders had strong political inclinations and economic incentives to reject the right of the Southern states to secede, and to use military force if necessary to maintain the union. The reason the South seceded was primarily that they believed (mostly wrongly) that the North wanted to end slave ownership, which they viewed as both economically destructive and a violation of their rights. While it's technically true that the story is more complicated than just "the war was fought over slavery", that doesn't change the fact that the existence of slavery was the most significant point of strife in the run-up to the war. But for slavery, the war would not have happened. There are few, possibly no other institutions in the America of the 1850s you can say that about. So it's absolutely correct to say that slavery was the reason the Confederates fought the war, even if it's not the reason Lincoln did. I think that gets you most of what people want to say when they say the war was over slavery.
msla 7y ago
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornersto... > The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. That's what the Vice President of the CSA said. The states also issued declarations of causes. Let's look at a couple of them: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... > Georgia > A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. > Mississippi > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. The CSA attempted to leave over the issue of slavery. Trying to say it was otherwise is to buy into the discredited Lost Cause narrative. https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D217 https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D217 https://daily.jstor.org/origins-confederate-lost-cause/ https://daily.jstor.org/origins-confederate-lost-cause/
rdtsc 7y ago
> total evil in men's hearts, this was only 200 years ago, not that long ago, this isnt something that happened 1000 years ago. Slavery is alive and well. Don't have to look 200 years into the past. This was just in 2017 in Libya. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42038451 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42038451 > "The footage released by CNN appears to show youths from Niger and other sub-Saharan countries being sold to buyers for about $400 (£300) at undisclosed locations in Libya..." It's not at the same scale as before but the practice certainly hasn't ended. It's also important to ask what allowed it to flourish. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya > "...More than 8,000 American personnel in warships and aircraft were deployed in the area. At least 3,000 targets were struck in 14,202 strike sorties, 716 of them in Tripoli and 492 in Brega.[87] The American air offensive included flights of B-2 Stealth bombers, each bomber armed with sixteen 2000-pound bombs, flying out of and returning to their base in Missouri in the continental United States..." And here is ex Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cheerfully exclaiming "We came, we saw, he died" all laughing and giggling like it's a joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
- roboys 7y ago
  Well, there was no slavery in Libya until Team America decided to drop in.
zdw 7y ago
Freeing slaves had the effect of taking away "property" from people. Any change to the status quo that affects someones finances, you'll see some level of opposition.
- gumby 7y ago
  The federal government paid “reparations” to those former slave owners and they were wealthier by the 1880s than they had been before the war.
  - zdw 7y ago
    Only happened in DC for very few people, so I'm not sure your statement holds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation#Unite...
    - gumby 7y ago
      Thank you, you caused me to dig up what I had read and I misremembered the causes. But within 15 years the rich were back on top. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/04/04/how-souths-slave-owning-dynasties-regained-their-wealth-after-civil-war/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/04/04/how-sout... (original study: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25700 https://www.nber.org/papers/w25700 ) Slightly different analysis, on wealth mobility on a shorter timescale: https://voxeu.org/article/impact-us-civil-war-southern-wealth-holders https://voxeu.org/article/impact-us-civil-war-southern-wealt...
pharrington 7y ago
Hopefully to crystallize what everyone else said, The American Civil War was not only about slavery; however, slavery was the primary motivational reason for the War.
- bscphil 7y ago
  A think a longer (but more clarifying) statement would be "slavery was the primary motivational reason for the War for the Confederates." Saying "the reason for the war" is already misleading because it assumes there was a reason than applied to both sides. On the contrary, the Union didn't conquer the South out of the goodness of their hearts because they were (mostly) fervent abolitionists. I think that's the misleading thing your summary implies.
jandrese 7y ago
when I was in grade school I learned that the Civil War was all about slavery. In college my roommates educated me about the numerous reasons for the civil war. After researching it more I've discovered that the Civil War was all about slavery.
- gumby 7y ago
  Thank you!
  - epynonymous 7y ago
    http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley...
    - gumby 7y ago
      Indeed that’s a famous letter but his implication is that his constitutional authority was to the union and as slavery was the driver of the war, the result was clear. A clever formulation, for a lawyer, designed to maintain maximum legitimacy for his actions. His opinions, however, were clear, and that is part of why he was the republican party’s first nominee.
      - epynonymous 7y ago
        not trying to say that slavery wasnt an important topic at the time or trying to undermine slavery, just that sometimes slavery is being misconstrued as the only reason for the war, wars are complicated, there was a strong divide between the country at the time, and the most immediate threat was to the union separating. this should not take away from the importance of the abolition of slavery or the fact that this was a heinous act, or the heroism of the people at the time and to this day, to some extent, of the heroes of our time still fighting racial prejudice.
        jandrese 7y ago
danesparza 7y ago
Reconstruction is where the US south shows their true colors in history. If there is any doubt in your mind about what the US Civil War was about, what happened in the years immediately following the Appomattox court house surrender should clear things up. Please lookup Jim Crow laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws , "Lost Cause" history rewrite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
microwavecamera 7y ago
https://blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seceded-from-the-union-to-protect-slavery/ https://blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seced...

invalidOrTaken 7y ago

>what allowed that to flourish? total evil in men's hearts To believe this is to be deceived. It leads to the idea that "I'm not 'totally evil,' thus I'm not at risk for doing something like this." But there were kind-hearted Nazis and black-hearted Allies, Stalin was reported to be a doting father, and some slaves struggled terribly after emancipation. If we don't see things clearly, we put ourselves at risk of repeating the mistakes of those we disparage, though perhaps in a different form.

maxxxxx 7y ago
Agreed. Seeing people as completely "evil" or "not evil" is a big mistake. For example a lot of people think that if someone has nice family and goes to church he is a "good man". But plenty of these people have committed mass murder while being nice at home.
thephyber 7y ago
It's also worth mentioning that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850[1] made it a crime for police and private citizens in slavery-illegal states ("the North") not to arrest and return slaves to the estate that they escaped from. In effect, the "good people" in the entire country were still culpable of the continuing existence of that "Peculiar Institution". I wonder what an average Northern jury person would think of prosecuting another Northerner who was charged with harboring a runaway slave in a Northern state (where slavery was illegal at the time). If the law says that the jury can only consider the facts of the case, not whether the law is just or moral/ethical, what are we to make of our legal system? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
- SllX 7y ago
  The great thing about Juries is that Jury nullification necessarily exists as well. Juries are one of the most powerful institutions in the country, but they also have an extremely narrowly defined scope. Whatever the law, and whatever the facts of the case, a Jury has absolute power to find the defendant guilty or not guilty.
  - davidgay 7y ago
    It's important to note that that power goes both ways, alas. This quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States is very much on topic: "Fewer than one percent of lynch mob participants were ever convicted by local courts and they were seldom prosecuted or brought to trial. By the late 19th century, trial juries in most of the southern United States were all white because African Americans had been disenfranchised, and only registered voters could serve as jurors. Often juries never let the matter go past the inquest."
    - SllX 7y ago
      Any system of government is only as good as the culture of the people it governs. Angels don’t serve on Juries in Hell.
  - thephyber 7y ago
    Yup. Reminds me of the Scott Warren case[1] from last month. [1] https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900075129/how-giving-water-to-illegal-immigrants-religious-freedom-issue.html https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900075129/how-giving-wat...

taneq 7y ago

> total evil in men's hearts Who put it there, hmm?

thephyber 7y ago
Seems like a reasonable question to ask. I suspect the downvotes are because this appears to be either a useless question (because it violates dogma of the most common Christian sect in the US) or because it's seen as a "cheap shot" at those beliefs, but it still seems like an important question we need to continually struggle with. It's not like we have proven the null hypothesis.
deckiedan 7y ago
I suspect you're just trolling - but in case you're interested in /a/ perspective from within the broader Christian tradition... What is evil? What would "evil in men's hearts" mean? Evil as a concept can only exist if there is some kind of definition of Good, or Anti-Evil as well. If Good and Evil are both just arbitary made-up definitions by some supreme being with a control-complex, then screw everything, it's all a meaningless shitshow. Equally, if there is no Good or Evil, just physical/chemical/quantum reactions in a purely mechanical universe, then equally, screw everything. Do whatever makes the happy-chemicals in your brain do their thing. However, if there is some kind of absolute Good, and absolute Evil, and it's just figuring out what those are and mean that's the complex bit - now we have an interesting universe, and the potential for some kind of meaningful life. We all argue about whether or not there is a God - or if there is, what He/She/It/They think is Good and Evil, both in our behaviour and in theirs. But the concept of there being actions which are Good, or Right, and actions which are Evil or Wrong somehow seems baked into our outlook. We disagree about specifics, sure. It could be that for there to be the potential for Good there is also the potential for Evil. Maybe it's impossible to have Good in our hearts if there is not also Evil. So what would a supreme being want from us? To aim for good, and avoid evil, sure. We want that from each other too. And from ourselves. But there are other things too. The bible trys to say God's desired interaction with us is closest understood by the analogy of a Father/Child relationship. So as a Dad, sure, I want a bit of obedience, especially when they're young and learning... But I'd rather my kids choose Good themselves, and listen to me for advice, and decide for themselves whether or not what I say is Good. And if they disagree, but it's not going to hurt them (too much) or others, then I prefer them do something I think is wrong than them to blindly obey me. I can give them advice, direction, but the older they grow, the more what I really want from them is more and more towards a real friendship. And I believe the same is true with our interaction with God. I believe God is more interested in a relationship with us, even if we're arguing and debating with Him/Her/It/Them, than in us blinding obeying. I believe there is the potential for a much more fulfilling life by pursuing meaning (and God) than by deliberately turning our backs on the idea. Jesus said "seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you". Seems like a good advice to me. (If you want some links, Luke's gospel is an interesting place to start. Or "The Case for Christ" (The book by Lee Strobel - ignore the preachy movie) might be interesting.)

wwarner 7y ago

Um, your theory of the civil war would've been news to Ulysses Grant who sent troops to many southern states to protect the voting rights of former slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Later_Reconstruction_and_civil_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Later_Reconst... Until the Civil War, slavery was like a scar that refused to heal. What's strange is that the southern aristocracy led their fellow countrymen into a hopeless war to defend a completely corrupt and diseased economic model.

maxerickson 7y ago

Lincoln was elected in large part because he was opposed to allowing slavery in new states (a popular position in the North) and secession followed directly from his election, because the Confederate States saw limiting slavery in the territories as an existential threat to their own practice of slavery. It's also kind of funny to hand wave about how the war was about a "pro-agrarian society" instead of necessarily about slavery and then immediately toss in a mention that the pro-agrarian society "required" slavery.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
shawndumas 7y ago
“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.” — Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley; August 22, 1862.
- epynonymous 7y ago
  spot on!
- bscphil 7y ago
  As I said in a comment cousin to this one, the reasons that Lincoln entered the war aren't equivalent to "the reason the war happened". What you call the "cause" of the war depends on what level you're looking at. The direct cause of the war was the Fort Sumter altercation. The reason the Fort Sumter event occurred was that both sides were angling hard for a war they thought they could easily win. The reason the Union wanted to fight the war was (mostly) that its leaders had strong political inclinations and economic incentives to reject the right of the Southern states to secede, and to use military force if necessary to maintain the union. The reason the South seceded was primarily that they believed (mostly wrongly) that the North wanted to end slave ownership, which they viewed as both economically destructive and a violation of their rights. While it's technically true that the story is more complicated than just "the war was fought over slavery", that doesn't change the fact that the existence of slavery was the most significant point of strife in the run-up to the war. But for slavery, the war would not have happened. There are few, possibly no other institutions in the America of the 1850s you can say that about. So it's absolutely correct to say that slavery was the reason the Confederates fought the war, even if it's not the reason Lincoln did. I think that gets you most of what people want to say when they say the war was over slavery.

msla 7y ago

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornersto... > The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. That's what the Vice President of the CSA said. The states also issued declarations of causes. Let's look at a couple of them: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati... > Georgia > A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. > Mississippi > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. The CSA attempted to leave over the issue of slavery. Trying to say it was otherwise is to buy into the discredited Lost Cause narrative. https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D217 https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D217 https://daily.jstor.org/origins-confederate-lost-cause/ https://daily.jstor.org/origins-confederate-lost-cause/

rdtsc 7y ago

> total evil in men's hearts, this was only 200 years ago, not that long ago, this isnt something that happened 1000 years ago. Slavery is alive and well. Don't have to look 200 years into the past. This was just in 2017 in Libya. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42038451 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42038451 > "The footage released by CNN appears to show youths from Niger and other sub-Saharan countries being sold to buyers for about $400 (£300) at undisclosed locations in Libya..." It's not at the same scale as before but the practice certainly hasn't ended. It's also important to ask what allowed it to flourish. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya > "...More than 8,000 American personnel in warships and aircraft were deployed in the area. At least 3,000 targets were struck in 14,202 strike sorties, 716 of them in Tripoli and 492 in Brega.[87] The American air offensive included flights of B-2 Stealth bombers, each bomber armed with sixteen 2000-pound bombs, flying out of and returning to their base in Missouri in the continental United States..." And here is ex Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cheerfully exclaiming "We came, we saw, he died" all laughing and giggling like it's a joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

roboys 7y ago
Well, there was no slavery in Libya until Team America decided to drop in.

zdw 7y ago

Freeing slaves had the effect of taking away "property" from people. Any change to the status quo that affects someones finances, you'll see some level of opposition.

gumby 7y ago
The federal government paid “reparations” to those former slave owners and they were wealthier by the 1880s than they had been before the war.
- zdw 7y ago
  Only happened in DC for very few people, so I'm not sure your statement holds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation#Unite...
  - gumby 7y ago
    Thank you, you caused me to dig up what I had read and I misremembered the causes. But within 15 years the rich were back on top. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/04/04/how-souths-slave-owning-dynasties-regained-their-wealth-after-civil-war/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/04/04/how-sout... (original study: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25700 https://www.nber.org/papers/w25700 ) Slightly different analysis, on wealth mobility on a shorter timescale: https://voxeu.org/article/impact-us-civil-war-southern-wealth-holders https://voxeu.org/article/impact-us-civil-war-southern-wealt...

pharrington 7y ago

Hopefully to crystallize what everyone else said, The American Civil War was not only about slavery; however, slavery was the primary motivational reason for the War.

bscphil 7y ago
A think a longer (but more clarifying) statement would be "slavery was the primary motivational reason for the War for the Confederates." Saying "the reason for the war" is already misleading because it assumes there was a reason than applied to both sides. On the contrary, the Union didn't conquer the South out of the goodness of their hearts because they were (mostly) fervent abolitionists. I think that's the misleading thing your summary implies.

jandrese 7y ago

when I was in grade school I learned that the Civil War was all about slavery. In college my roommates educated me about the numerous reasons for the civil war. After researching it more I've discovered that the Civil War was all about slavery.

gumby 7y ago
Thank you!
- epynonymous 7y ago
  http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley...
  - gumby 7y ago
    Indeed that’s a famous letter but his implication is that his constitutional authority was to the union and as slavery was the driver of the war, the result was clear. A clever formulation, for a lawyer, designed to maintain maximum legitimacy for his actions. His opinions, however, were clear, and that is part of why he was the republican party’s first nominee.
    - epynonymous 7y ago
      not trying to say that slavery wasnt an important topic at the time or trying to undermine slavery, just that sometimes slavery is being misconstrued as the only reason for the war, wars are complicated, there was a strong divide between the country at the time, and the most immediate threat was to the union separating. this should not take away from the importance of the abolition of slavery or the fact that this was a heinous act, or the heroism of the people at the time and to this day, to some extent, of the heroes of our time still fighting racial prejudice.
      - jandrese 7y ago

danesparza 7y ago

Reconstruction is where the US south shows their true colors in history. If there is any doubt in your mind about what the US Civil War was about, what happened in the years immediately following the Appomattox court house surrender should clear things up. Please lookup Jim Crow laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws , "Lost Cause" history rewrite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

microwavecamera 7y ago

https://blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seceded-from-the-union-to-protect-slavery/ https://blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seced...