-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's talk about Lincoln, slavery, the Civil War, and cornerstones....
- Thread starter tytlyf
- Start date
I don't believe this is true, any more than I believe the USA invaded Iraq to liberate Iraqis.
But I've gotten tired of this argument. People can believe that a bunch of white northerners went off to die for the slaves if they want.
Tom
Last edited by a moderator:
tytlyf
Not Religious
? Watch the video. So if the Civil War wasn't about slavery, what was it about?
Last edited by a moderator:
I like that guy but I'm not taking the time to rehash this.
It's very complex, but the north and south had very different cultures.
I don't think they'd have ever formed a country if it weren't for our original War of Secession(from the British Empire). It was all or nothing against an opponent as powerful as the British. The War of Northern Aggression was an invasion of the Confederate States for more or less the same reason the British fought to keep the colonies. Money and power.
Tom
This is exactly why I find the discussion tiresome.
Tom
The Civil War was about slavery, but that doesn't really explain anything. I did watch most of the video, but I disagree with the speaker's contention that Lincoln's (or the Union's) motivations were irrelevant.
The whole reason for the Secession was because the South was angry and upset about Lincoln's election in 1860, and they believed that it would eventually spell the end of slavery. So, Lincoln's motivations become very relevant when put into that light. It's also apparent that the Southern hotheads had grossly exaggerated the power of Lincoln and the Radical Republicans to even end slavery at all. If they had remained in the Union, the South would have had enough political power to be able to prevent or at least delay the abolition of slavery.
The other side of the issue was that the North and South had developed dual economies, with the Northern industrialists favoring a diversified, modern, industrial economy, while the South favored an agrarian, planter's economy which focused on one key commodity for export (cotton) and relying on imports for everything else. The North favored tariffs, while the South favored free trade. (Let that be a lesson to the free trade advocates out there.)
Lincoln's original platform was not outright abolition, but he wanted to contain slavery to where it already was. He didn't want to add any more slave territories, and that was the whole bone of contention all along. All of the compromises leading up to the Civil War were about maintaining a balance of power between slave states and free states - because they were dual economies and each didn't want the other to become more powerful. The South had pretty much ruled the roost for the longest time, while the Northern states were the ones who believed their states' rights were being trodden upon. By 1860, the tide was turning, and there were 18 free states versus only 15 slave states.
As far as determining what the Civil War was about, that can also be measured in the aftermath. Slavery was indeed abolished by the 13th Amendment. The 14th and 15th Amendments were about defining US citizenship and considered all US citizens to be equal, regardless of race. However, as subsequent events would demonstrate, the principles of racial equality existed only on paper or be obscured by mendacious terms such as "separate but equal."
But another aspect of the Postbellum era was the acceleration of industrialization and expansion across the continent. The previous treaties with the Native tribes were revised (well, broken, actually) and all the tribes were absorbed into the US, albeit relegated to reservations. The West was teeming with resources and arable land, and settlers were moving in and building railroads, mines, ranches, etc. They didn't need slaves to do the work, but the workers were paid very little and worked under grueling conditions. The freed slaves who worked as sharecroppers in the South fared even worse (not to mention the terrorism and atrocities of the KKK). In the North, the horrid conditions in the factories and cities led to the growth of the labor movement and unionization - which the industrialists vehemently opposed.
By looking at the conditions and direction America took following the Civil War, it seems clear that the side that won the Civil War had at least minimally dealt with the situation leading to the original casus belli. The Union was preserved, and slavery had ended. Settled. End of story.
After that, they had many other things they wanted to do.
They obviously weren't humanitarians, nor did they seem to care all that much about the well-being of the freed former slaves in the South. But in the North, it was probably more indifference, as they were more driven by capitalism than racism. They just wanted to make money, and they weren't that particular about how they got it. Essentially, that class has been ruling America ever since - corporate America, big business - you know the type.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Can we talk about Lincoln's genocide against Native Americans? You ready for that discussion yet?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
While slavery was definitely a factor, the main reason for the Civil War was over states rights.
Exactly.
Slavery was mostly a wedge issue designed to get cannon fodder while the wealthy elites fought for wealth and power.
Tom
Which “rights” specifically?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Okay... but what specifically was the right the states were fighting to defend? Let's see... if I recall correctly the leaders of the Confederacy VERY clearly stated that the state's right they went to war to defend was the right to own slaves.
It was primarily the threat of abolition and subsequent economic chaos that led to the war. You can read the documents yourself: The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
The South played both sides of the field over state's rights. They certainly weren't honoring the northern states' rights with their support of the Fugitive Slave Act.
The Lost Cause argument was a post war invention. Lost Cause of the Confederacy - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I'd be happy to. It's a separate topic though.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Slavery. The confederate conservative demokkkrats loved slavery, racism, kkk, etc.
Interesting how the parties switched after Nixon's 'southern strategy'.
I'd like to explain my original term in that sentence.
The northerners were horribly racist as a general rule. My Northern state Constitution forbade black people from living or owning property here. I expect the word I used was one of the more polite ones used to describe black people in the mid 19th century.
I wouldn't use it in real life.
Tom
This is a big part of the problem with this conversation.
Most of the information available now comes from two basic sources.
A) Contemporaneous accounts of extremists. What they are recorded as saying and doing. It includes mostly radical abolitionists, diehard racists, and most especially politicians running for office.
B) Post war apologetics. The victors write the history books. Talking about slavery sounds better than a war over cotton profits.
In other words, much of it would now qualify as fake news.
Tom