8 ms·

I’m sorry but this is profoundly and aggressively incorrect. The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. The

I’m sorry but this is profoundly and aggressively incorrect. The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. The ‘reframing’ is in fact what you’ve tried to assert, in that it was supposedly a matter of economics rather than slavery (though of course other factors were certainly at play). It’s part of the ‘lost cause’ narrative furthered by the southern states after the civil war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederac... https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/ https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-ci... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/the-lost-causes-long-legacy/613288/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/the-lost-c...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
piethesailorman 4y ago
It is interesting that the emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves of the northern and northern occupied states, despite that being there "main concern"
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  The main concern of the southern states was slavery. The main concern of the north was continuance of the Union as such. That is, the intent behind seccession was to maintain slavery. The intent behind the emancipation proclamation wasn't (solely) to end slavery, but to encourage rebellion by enslaved southerners.
  - piethesailorman 4y ago
    South Carolina did succeede due largely to its fear that the federal government would nationally abolish slavery. President Buchanan, before leaving office, made a gentlemans agreement that he would leave alone a largely abandoned sand bar military base that was run by South Carolinians inside the boundary of said state. In the middle of the night, a federal navy ship, who took all the armamments from a well established nearby federal military base, went to fort sumter and forced out the occupants by bayonet(kind of aggresive?/s) Cabinet members of Lincolns presidency warned him not to send reinforcements, which they were sure would further provoke sentiments of military provocation. He did anyway. This pissed off the SCians who decided, to hell with it no one gets this sand bar, and so they destroyed the base by cannon fire with no one there to nullify either parties claim. No one died, largely because no one was supposed too. Lincoln, then, decided he should call on the remaining states to build one of the largest armies assembled by the federal goverment to forcibly take back south carolina. This extereme overreaction to the situation is the well known historical reason why the rest of the states promptly left the union in its fear of the clear millitary power grab that was occuring before their eyes. Many powerful southerners did not want their home states succeed, including Robert E Lee! Note: What I did not say in the second to last sentence was that there wasn't sentiment of the follower states of protecting slavery. Lincoln, like a good lawyer, modified the definition of a word, union, from (meriam webster 1. the formation of a single political unit[okay sure, but read on] from two or more separate and independent. Most dicts use the word "confederacy" for this definition as well) a voluntary agreement between indepenent parts, to involuntary permanance. Did he use trade embargoes like a peace seeking consolidator would? Regardless of your opinion on slavery's involvement, or how righteous either side was, Lincoln, at best, poorly* navigated the waters of the time and was the clear cause of military escalation bringing the greatest casualty of americans lives by population of its respective era.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      > Lincoln, then, decided he should call on the remaining states to build one of the largest armies assembled by the federal goverment to forcibly take back south carolina. This extereme overreaction to the situation is the well known historical reason why the rest of the states promptly left the union in its fear of the clear millitary power grab that was occuring before their eyes. Interesting claim, but it doesn't hold up. The battle of Ft. Sumpter started in April 1861. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had already seceded. Only Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee waited until after the battle. > Did he use trade embargoes like a peace seeking consolidator would? He wasn't looking to be a piece seeking consolidator, he was looking to put down a revolt. You're welcome to make the argument that actually it would have been better realpolitik to appease the southern states. In fact, I'd love to see that argument!
      - piethesailorman 4y ago
        Fair! My mistake, a little less than half of the states seceded due to the problem I addressed of excessive force which you have not discredited or properly justified. Again your second paragraph attacks a small technicality. Your saying destroying a run down building on a sandbar is the same as conquering a 32000 square miles? Or are you saying that ignoring the definitions found in all english dictionaries is null and void for this specific use case? Seperating from a definitional union is not a revolt. If my wife leaves me do i get to threaten her with violence and then beat her if she refuses, then chain her permanently to me?
        joshuamorton 4y ago
        I suggest you read something as basic as the Wikipedia article on sumpter, basically everything you've said about it is wrong, and I'm wholly uninterested in discussing this with someone from an alternate timeline. What I will say is first, that trying to equate families and countries is rarely valid, and this case is no exception (declaring yourself divorced, for example, does not make it so, and if you take certain actions after unilaterally claiming your union is solved, your partner would be within their rights to invite state force against you!). And second, that yes, firing cannons on soldiers is usually considered an act of war. Everyone involved knew that, the confederacy was already gearing up for war and some think that SC's intent was specifically to provoke a war. So your argument that it was just friendly ribbing doesn't really stand to scrutiny. Your just pushing transparent confederate propaganda at this point. Stop apologizing for traitors and insurrectionists.
qiskit 4y ago
> The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. Should I believe you or lincoln? '...My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery...' https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greele... If the civil war was about freeing slaves, why did lincoln wait so long to end slavery? Why didn't he do it immediately? > It’s part of the ‘lost cause’ narrative furthered by the southern states after the civil war. Who cares as long as it is true? I'm not a southerner. Not a fan of the confederacy. Is your assertion that racist white northerners fought a war against racist white southerners to free black people? Does that make any sense to you? Have you looked into lincoln's opinions of black people? "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality..."
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Should I believe you or lincoln? Both. The rebellion was about slavery for the rebels and preserving the Union for the Union. GP addressed the former, Lincoln spoke for the latter.
  - qiskit 4y ago
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > But the rebels seceded after the north raised tariffs Wrong. The tariff bill only passed because the Democrats lost the votes in the Senate that had stopped it earlier in the same session of Congress because the states that had seceded weren't represented anymore. Literally all the South had to do to avoid the tariff bill was not secede.
donthellbanme 4y ago
emodendroket 4y ago
We can go ahead and cast it as an economic conflict if we really want -- the conflict between a system based on industrialization and an alternate one based on slavery. But slavery is, as you say, most certainly central to the conflict.
true_religion 4y ago
I’ve always wondered why people reframing the civil war to be about economics rather than slavery, don’t consider slaves are part of the economy (and that slavery itself is a perversion of an economic system). If you value free market economics, like we so often do today, then step one ought to be free mobility of labor which means laborers ought to be literally free of physical chains binding them to their “employers”.
- Zenst 4y ago
  You have to ask - if there was no cotten export industry of such a scale, would we of had still had slavery at the scale it was in that era?
  - true_religion 4y ago
    If nothing replaced cotton, then probably not, but there are other goods than could have substituted. And of course, eventually someone would have had the bright idea of using slaves in factories and coal mines. In the end it’s hard to avoid slavery by merely being resource poor. Even in the worst environments, some small elite will always benefit by enslaving the rest of the populace. Take for example, the Danes taking English slaves. It was not an economy bursting with productivity and wealth, yet slavery still existed because “elite” warriors didn’t want to wash their own clothes or grow their own crops or make their own entertainment. This is why I called slavery an economic perversion. There is no job that can’t be done by someone enslaved. Slaves may start as field workers, but they eventually become supervisors. From bed warmers to dancers, singers, and composers. From household servants, they become palace chefs. From nannies they become tutors. From handmaids they become house stewards and accountants. If the practice isn’t stamped out (or restricted via laws such as a caste system since mere social pressure won’t stop the elite from maximizing profit from more educated slaves), it just grows more varied. I would bet if institutional slavery existed legally today, even computer programmers would face stiff competition from that source rather than having to worry about jobs being outsourced.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

piethesailorman 4y ago

It is interesting that the emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves of the northern and northern occupied states, despite that being there "main concern"

joshuamorton 4y ago
The main concern of the southern states was slavery. The main concern of the north was continuance of the Union as such. That is, the intent behind seccession was to maintain slavery. The intent behind the emancipation proclamation wasn't (solely) to end slavery, but to encourage rebellion by enslaved southerners.
- piethesailorman 4y ago
  South Carolina did succeede due largely to its fear that the federal government would nationally abolish slavery. President Buchanan, before leaving office, made a gentlemans agreement that he would leave alone a largely abandoned sand bar military base that was run by South Carolinians inside the boundary of said state. In the middle of the night, a federal navy ship, who took all the armamments from a well established nearby federal military base, went to fort sumter and forced out the occupants by bayonet(kind of aggresive?/s) Cabinet members of Lincolns presidency warned him not to send reinforcements, which they were sure would further provoke sentiments of military provocation. He did anyway. This pissed off the SCians who decided, to hell with it no one gets this sand bar, and so they destroyed the base by cannon fire with no one there to nullify either parties claim. No one died, largely because no one was supposed too. Lincoln, then, decided he should call on the remaining states to build one of the largest armies assembled by the federal goverment to forcibly take back south carolina. This extereme overreaction to the situation is the well known historical reason why the rest of the states promptly left the union in its fear of the clear millitary power grab that was occuring before their eyes. Many powerful southerners did not want their home states succeed, including Robert E Lee! Note: What I did not say in the second to last sentence was that there wasn't sentiment of the follower states of protecting slavery. Lincoln, like a good lawyer, modified the definition of a word, union, from (meriam webster 1. the formation of a single political unit[okay sure, but read on] from two or more separate and independent. Most dicts use the word "confederacy" for this definition as well) a voluntary agreement between indepenent parts, to involuntary permanance. Did he use trade embargoes like a peace seeking consolidator would? Regardless of your opinion on slavery's involvement, or how righteous either side was, Lincoln, at best, poorly* navigated the waters of the time and was the clear cause of military escalation bringing the greatest casualty of americans lives by population of its respective era.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    > Lincoln, then, decided he should call on the remaining states to build one of the largest armies assembled by the federal goverment to forcibly take back south carolina. This extereme overreaction to the situation is the well known historical reason why the rest of the states promptly left the union in its fear of the clear millitary power grab that was occuring before their eyes. Interesting claim, but it doesn't hold up. The battle of Ft. Sumpter started in April 1861. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had already seceded. Only Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee waited until after the battle. > Did he use trade embargoes like a peace seeking consolidator would? He wasn't looking to be a piece seeking consolidator, he was looking to put down a revolt. You're welcome to make the argument that actually it would have been better realpolitik to appease the southern states. In fact, I'd love to see that argument!
    - piethesailorman 4y ago
      Fair! My mistake, a little less than half of the states seceded due to the problem I addressed of excessive force which you have not discredited or properly justified. Again your second paragraph attacks a small technicality. Your saying destroying a run down building on a sandbar is the same as conquering a 32000 square miles? Or are you saying that ignoring the definitions found in all english dictionaries is null and void for this specific use case? Seperating from a definitional union is not a revolt. If my wife leaves me do i get to threaten her with violence and then beat her if she refuses, then chain her permanently to me?
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        I suggest you read something as basic as the Wikipedia article on sumpter, basically everything you've said about it is wrong, and I'm wholly uninterested in discussing this with someone from an alternate timeline. What I will say is first, that trying to equate families and countries is rarely valid, and this case is no exception (declaring yourself divorced, for example, does not make it so, and if you take certain actions after unilaterally claiming your union is solved, your partner would be within their rights to invite state force against you!). And second, that yes, firing cannons on soldiers is usually considered an act of war. Everyone involved knew that, the confederacy was already gearing up for war and some think that SC's intent was specifically to provoke a war. So your argument that it was just friendly ribbing doesn't really stand to scrutiny. Your just pushing transparent confederate propaganda at this point. Stop apologizing for traitors and insurrectionists.

qiskit 4y ago

> The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. Should I believe you or lincoln? '...My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery...' https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greele... If the civil war was about freeing slaves, why did lincoln wait so long to end slavery? Why didn't he do it immediately? > It’s part of the ‘lost cause’ narrative furthered by the southern states after the civil war. Who cares as long as it is true? I'm not a southerner. Not a fan of the confederacy. Is your assertion that racist white northerners fought a war against racist white southerners to free black people? Does that make any sense to you? Have you looked into lincoln's opinions of black people? "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality..."

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Should I believe you or lincoln? Both. The rebellion was about slavery for the rebels and preserving the Union for the Union. GP addressed the former, Lincoln spoke for the latter.
- qiskit 4y ago
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > But the rebels seceded after the north raised tariffs Wrong. The tariff bill only passed because the Democrats lost the votes in the Senate that had stopped it earlier in the same session of Congress because the states that had seceded weren't represented anymore. Literally all the South had to do to avoid the tariff bill was not secede.

donthellbanme 4y ago

emodendroket 4y ago

We can go ahead and cast it as an economic conflict if we really want -- the conflict between a system based on industrialization and an alternate one based on slavery. But slavery is, as you say, most certainly central to the conflict.

true_religion 4y ago

I’ve always wondered why people reframing the civil war to be about economics rather than slavery, don’t consider slaves are part of the economy (and that slavery itself is a perversion of an economic system). If you value free market economics, like we so often do today, then step one ought to be free mobility of labor which means laborers ought to be literally free of physical chains binding them to their “employers”.

Zenst 4y ago
You have to ask - if there was no cotten export industry of such a scale, would we of had still had slavery at the scale it was in that era?
- true_religion 4y ago
  If nothing replaced cotton, then probably not, but there are other goods than could have substituted. And of course, eventually someone would have had the bright idea of using slaves in factories and coal mines. In the end it’s hard to avoid slavery by merely being resource poor. Even in the worst environments, some small elite will always benefit by enslaving the rest of the populace. Take for example, the Danes taking English slaves. It was not an economy bursting with productivity and wealth, yet slavery still existed because “elite” warriors didn’t want to wash their own clothes or grow their own crops or make their own entertainment. This is why I called slavery an economic perversion. There is no job that can’t be done by someone enslaved. Slaves may start as field workers, but they eventually become supervisors. From bed warmers to dancers, singers, and composers. From household servants, they become palace chefs. From nannies they become tutors. From handmaids they become house stewards and accountants. If the practice isn’t stamped out (or restricted via laws such as a caste system since mere social pressure won’t stop the elite from maximizing profit from more educated slaves), it just grows more varied. I would bet if institutional slavery existed legally today, even computer programmers would face stiff competition from that source rather than having to worry about jobs being outsourced.