Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • There is also beauty in the flux of interesting times.

Topic: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War? (Read 8872 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #550
Here's a question for you ...

N. Korea has a horrible evil regime, does it not?  Just as "The South" in America did.  Should S. Korea invade them and fix them?  Or should they leave them alone and respect their sovereignty?
North and South Korea are separate independent countries and have been for over 60 years. Their war was fought long ago and it's been effectively over for decades. North Korea didn't seceded from a Union both States had agreed to 80 years previously, after a bitter fight for independence. The split came primarily as a result of outside forces, the USSR and China on one hand and the US and the UN on the other.

Regardless of the history and differences between the two, playing the "but mom, all the other kids' moms let them do it, why can't I?" is simply a distraction. A tactic you commonly resort to.
Are we there yet?

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #551
What a mighty fortress is willful ignorance.  :awgee:

  • uncool
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #552
Here's a question for you ...

N. Korea has a horrible evil regime, does it not?  Just as "The South" in America did.  Should S. Korea invade them and fix them?  Or should they leave them alone and respect their sovereignty?
Holy Christ, the ignorance.

Fuck no, Dave. The reason people don't go in isn't any of this bullshit about sovereignty. Fuck that shit. Fuck it up, down, and sideways.

The reason we don't invade and topple that horrid, terrible, monstrous regime is that we think more people would die that way. Because it would trigger North Korean nuclear missiles, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of South Koreans. Not to mention the deaths of nearly all of the very North Koreans on whose behalf we'd be invading. As a fucking appetizer. And the entree would be a world-devastating war with China. With a dessert of who-the-fuck-knows, but most likely a power struggle with some awful people coming out on top, if we're lucky enough to avoid nuclear winter.

Are you seriously suggesting that "sovereignty" is in any way more important than the lives of North Koreans?
  • Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 09:45:24 PM by uncool

  • Sea Star
  • Not an octohatter
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #553
Despite the fact that you seem ineducable, Dave, lets have a look at slavery in the South.
<snip excellent synopsis>
Good grief, you Americans.
Horrible if accurate.
Do you condemn it, if it's accurate?
Of course.  Do you need me to say "of course" 6 different ways before you believe me?
Well, you've spent the last two days refusing to condemn it in more than 6 ways, so if you want to make sure everyone reads it, maybe you'd better.
Better yet, see if you can explain how southern slavery as described in Vivisectus' excellent essay differs from 1) northern industrial workers of the same time, and 2) your job or your son's.
  • Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 09:56:16 PM by Sea Star
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Today at 07:50:40 AM
Lol
Sea Star has been trolling me this whole time.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #554
Here's a question for you ...

N. Korea has a horrible evil regime, does it not?  Just as "The South" in America did.  Should S. Korea invade them and fix them?  Or should they leave them alone and respect their sovereignty?
Holy Christ, the ignorance.

Fuck no, Dave. The reason people don't go in isn't any of this bullshit about sovereignty. Fuck that shit. Fuck it up, down, and sideways.

The reason we don't invade and topple that horrid, terrible, monstrous regime is that we think more people would die that way. Because it would trigger North Korean nuclear missiles, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of South Koreans. Not to mention the deaths of nearly all of the very North Koreans on whose behalf we'd be invading. As a fucking appetizer. And the entree would be a world-devastating war with China. With a dessert of who-the-fuck-knows, but most likely a power struggle with some awful people coming out on top, if we're lucky enough to avoid nuclear winter.

Are you seriously suggesting that "sovereignty" is in any way more important than the lives of North Koreans?
What??!!  War as a means of putting a halt to oppression is not desirable?

I have no further questions, Your Honor!

  • Pingu
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #555
Dave: do you have any reason to think that vivisectus excellent essay isn't true?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #556
Slavery was a political problem, one that just refused to go away for decades. Tortuous political compromises where attempted to ensure that the south could keep the institution - allowing slave states to count 3/5ths of their population when determining how many seats they got for representation, for instance. Trying to fix which of the new territories going for statehood would be slave-states to preserve the balance was another.

The reason it was such a problem was that you had a  smaller group of people in the south who controlled all that cotton-capital, which was very important to the US economy as a whole. Like we have seen already, cotton made up 60% of US exports by the beginning of the civil war. All this economic activity had transformed southern society, but it had left them married to slavery.

The majority of people in the USA on the whole opposed slavery. They opposed it on moral grounds, and they opposed it because they were worried by the growing political influence that the slave-states were able to bring to bear. Many were afraid of what would happen if slave-economy states got the upper hand completely, and feared that slave-cotton capital would come to dominate the whole of the USA, to the detriment of free workers. They worried that when the west was settled, and all those extra resources would become available, they would be run in a slave-system dominated by rich plantation owners. The Republican Party was founded, among other reasons, as a reaction to this what they saw as a growing threat. They called it Slave Power - influence at the federal level, bought with cotton-money, wielded by a minority that had narrow interests that did not correspond with that of the free-state majority.

The South, meanwhile, felt they had no option but to expand slavery. Leave all these new territories to be developed into free states, let the capital in them become based on free labor, and they would quickly lose enough power at the federal level to protect the institution of slavery on which their economy now depended.

Interestingly, here the narrative that the south just wanted to be left alone kind of falls apart. They were happy enough for the federal government to determine what could go into a state's constitution if it furthered their interests. They actively sought not just to keep slavery were it was, but to expand it into the new states as the US expanded westward. In the decades leading up to the civil war, a relatively small number of people had a level of political sway that was disproportionate to the number of voting citizens they represented at the federal level - and they were seeking to expand this power even more.

By 1954 the strategy of compromise and containment was clearly failing. The problem escalated into open political violence, as groups of pro- and anti-slavery people clashed in Kansas in a protracted and very dirty fight to control what would go into the constitution of Kansas. In a way what we see in Bleeding Kansas is the civil war writ small: pro- and anti-slavery interests were now so irreconcilable that violence became almost impossible to avoid.

Finally, Lincoln is elected. A republican, a member of the party that directly opposes slave-cotton interests. The slave-states have lost the fight for control of the federal government, and they fear that republican programs will start to dismantle the system that allowed them to keep enough control of the federal government to further their interests. Lincoln tried to assure them he would not directly oppose slavery, but the southern states do not believe him, with good reason. While he may not want to end slavery outright, he does indeed want to erode the political power that the slave states can bring to bear. And so the south secedes.

Slavery was indeed the primary cause of the conflict. Not in an ideological kind of way, although there were plenty of people who opposed slavery for moral reasons. It was more that slavery and free labor represented two systems of economic and political power, systems whose interests were not reconcilable in a single democratic federation.

Nor was it the case that a pro-states rights south rebelled against an overreaching and meddling federal government. The South had been doing plenty of over-reaching and meddling themselves. It was just that the struggle between free labor and slave-cotton interests had come to a head, and the south was afraid it would now begin to lose out steadily to the more populous north. Rather than accept this, they decided to interpret the United part of the name of their state as an option rather than an obligation, and seceded. The North interpreted this as illegal, and considered it treason and rebellion.

Could the North have just let them go? I don't think so. Rather than one nation expanding west and filling that whole continent, there would have been two, and they would have been in direct competition for the new territories. The stability of the remaining Union would have been threatened as well: every time the US as a whole would make a decision, each state could just opt out of that decision, and either go their own way, or join the South. It would be impossible to make decisions for the whole state, to effectively act as a nation rather than as a loose confederacy. Let us not forget that the US was still pretty much a fledgling state: plenty of people expected it to go down in a chaos of democratic infighting. Commentators in the UK and France figured that the civil war was the beginning of the end of the USA as an independent state.

Could the South have stayed? I don't see that as practical either. The threat to slavery was real, even if Lincoln did not intend to directly oppose it through the legislature. And the whole economy of the South, all that cotton-money that had turned the South from a rural backwater to one that sported a sophisticated, flamboyantly affluent society would be disrupted as they reconfigured into a free labor economic system... one with 4 million angry ex-slaves to deal with also. It would have set them back economically, and it would have made them fall behind in the struggle for federal influence.

So yeah - it is not a simple story of "slavery bad hmmmkay?" but then again, no-one ever said it was. If you stop being such a classic case of dunning-kruger for a second, you realize that what you decry as propaganda is just the ultra-simple version. It is meant for children in primary school. Unlike you, however, the majority of people did not stop learning at 12.

But because the 12-year old version is all you know, you assume it is all everyone knows. And hey look! Things are not so simple, you guys! Look at me figuring that out!

Well, D'uh.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #557
Dave: do you have any reason to think that vivisectus excellent essay isn't true?

That was a long post, I doubt he's read it.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #558
Dave: do you have any reason to think that vivisectus excellent essay isn't true?
No not at the moment.  But I do wonder if John C Calhoun was just ignorant of this type of horrible mistreatment?  Or what?  From the reporter's account, it does seem that Calhoun's slaves were at least as happy as any factory workers in the North if not more.  And it's not true that his slaves did not get paid.  In fact, they were given their own land and were allowed to run their own mini-farms.  And many of them were hired at the Calhoun plantation as employees after the war.  (One could ask if they had a better or worse life under this arrangement) Calhoun seemed to be THE VOICE for the South and one would think a man like that would be aware of horrible mistreatment such as that described.  Any ideas why Calhoun appears oblivious to this sort of stuff?

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #559
Dave: do you have any reason to think that vivisectus excellent essay isn't true?

That was a long post, I doubt he's read it.
Borealis, you are an Admin at this forum.  And half the time you act like the junior highers here with your insulting comments.  You really should grow up and start acting like an Admin.

Yes, I read it.  I am voracious reader ... probably read more than most people here ... it's just that I don't read :yuck: books :yuck: very much.

  • Pingu
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #560
Dave: do you have any reason to think that vivisectus excellent essay isn't true?
No not at the moment.  But I do wonder if John C Calhoun was just ignorant of this type of horrible mistreatment?  Or what?  From the reporter's account, it does seem that Calhoun's slaves were at least as happy as any factory workers in the North if not more.  And it's not true that his slaves did not get paid.  In fact, they were given their own land and were allowed to run their own mini-farms.  And many of them were hired at the Calhoun plantation as employees after the war.  (One could ask if they had a better or worse life under this arrangement) Calhoun seemed to be THE VOICE for the South and one would think a man like that would be aware of horrible mistreatment such as that described.  Any ideas why Calhoun appears oblivious to this sort of stuff?

Have you even READ any of vivisectus's posts?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #561
Dave: do you have any reason to think that vivisectus excellent essay isn't true?

That was a long post, I doubt he's read it.
Borealis, you are an Admin at this forum.  And half the time you act like the junior highers here with your insulting comments.  You really should grow up and start acting like an Admin.

Dave, you have been posting at TR since its inception. Try reading its bloody charter.  It's unreadable so it should suit your style.


Yes, I read it.  I am voracious reader ... probably read more than most people here ... it's just that I don't read :yuck: books :yuck: very much.

You don't read anything.  You Ctrl-F at best.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #562
Slavery was a political problem, one that just refused to go away for decades. Tortuous political compromises where attempted to ensure that the south could keep the institution - allowing slave states to count 3/5ths of their population when determining how many seats they got for representation, for instance. Trying to fix which of the new territories going for statehood would be slave-states to preserve the balance was another.

The reason it was such a problem was that you had a  smaller group of people in the south who controlled all that cotton-capital, which was very important to the US economy as a whole. Like we have seen already, cotton made up 60% of US exports by the beginning of the civil war. All this economic activity had transformed southern society, but it had left them married to slavery.

The majority of people in the USA on the whole opposed slavery. They opposed it on moral grounds, and they opposed it because they were worried by the growing political influence that the slave-states were able to bring to bear. Many were afraid of what would happen if slave-economy states got the upper hand completely, and feared that slave-cotton capital would come to dominate the whole of the USA, to the detriment of free workers. They worried that when the west was settled, and all those extra resources would become available, they would be run in a slave-system dominated by rich plantation owners. The Republican Party was founded, among other reasons, as a reaction to this what they saw as a growing threat. They called it Slave Power - influence at the federal level, bought with cotton-money, wielded by a minority that had narrow interests that did not correspond with that of the free-state majority.

The South, meanwhile, felt they had no option but to expand slavery. Leave all these new territories to be developed into free states, let the capital in them become based on free labor, and they would quickly lose enough power at the federal level to protect the institution of slavery on which their economy now depended.

Interestingly, here the narrative that the south just wanted to be left alone kind of falls apart. They were happy enough for the federal government to determine what could go into a state's constitution if it furthered their interests. They actively sought not just to keep slavery were it was, but to expand it into the new states as the US expanded westward. In the decades leading up to the civil war, a relatively small number of people had a level of political sway that was disproportionate to the number of voting citizens they represented at the federal level - and they were seeking to expand this power even more.

By 1954 the strategy of compromise and containment was clearly failing. The problem escalated into open political violence, as groups of pro- and anti-slavery people clashed in Kansas in a protracted and very dirty fight to control what would go into the constitution of Kansas. In a way what we see in Bleeding Kansas is the civil war writ small: pro- and anti-slavery interests were now so irreconcilable that violence became almost impossible to avoid.

Finally, Lincoln is elected. A republican, a member of the party that directly opposes slave-cotton interests. The slave-states have lost the fight for control of the federal government, and they fear that republican programs will start to dismantle the system that allowed them to keep enough control of the federal government to further their interests. Lincoln tried to assure them he would not directly oppose slavery, but the southern states do not believe him, with good reason. While he may not want to end slavery outright, he does indeed want to erode the political power that the slave states can bring to bear. And so the south secedes.

Slavery was indeed the primary cause of the conflict. Not in an ideological kind of way, although there were plenty of people who opposed slavery for moral reasons. It was more that slavery and free labor represented two systems of economic and political power, systems whose interests were not reconcilable in a single democratic federation.

Nor was it the case that a pro-states rights south rebelled against an overreaching and meddling federal government. The South had been doing plenty of over-reaching and meddling themselves. It was just that the struggle between free labor and slave-cotton interests had come to a head, and the south was afraid it would now begin to lose out steadily to the more populous north. Rather than accept this, they decided to interpret the United part of the name of their state as an option rather than an obligation, and seceded. The North interpreted this as illegal, and considered it treason and rebellion.

Could the North have just let them go? I don't think so. Rather than one nation expanding west and filling that whole continent, there would have been two, and they would have been in direct competition for the new territories. The stability of the remaining Union would have been threatened as well: every time the US as a whole would make a decision, each state could just opt out of that decision, and either go their own way, or join the South. It would be impossible to make decisions for the whole state, to effectively act as a nation rather than as a loose confederacy. Let us not forget that the US was still pretty much a fledgling state: plenty of people expected it to go down in a chaos of democratic infighting. Commentators in the UK and France figured that the civil war was the beginning of the end of the USA as an independent state.

Could the South have stayed? I don't see that as practical either. The threat to slavery was real, even if Lincoln did not intend to directly oppose it through the legislature. And the whole economy of the South, all that cotton-money that had turned the South from a rural backwater to one that sported a sophisticated, flamboyantly affluent society would be disrupted as they reconfigured into a free labor economic system... one with 4 million angry ex-slaves to deal with also. It would have set them back economically, and it would have made them fall behind in the struggle for federal influence.

So yeah - it is not a simple story of "slavery bad hmmmkay?" but then again, no-one ever said it was. If you stop being such a classic case of dunning-kruger for a second, you realize that what you decry as propaganda is just the ultra-simple version. It is meant for children in primary school. Unlike you, however, the majority of people did not stop learning at 12.

But because the 12-year old version is all you know, you assume it is all everyone knows. And hey look! Things are not so simple, you guys! Look at me figuring that out!

Well, D'uh.
Oh come on.  Most adults - not just 12 year olds - think "north was good - no slavery, south was bad - slavery, Lincoln was a hero" and they go on their merry way never even thinking about questions of state's rights and sovereignty and the horrors of war as a means of solving problems and so on.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #563
Dave: do you have any reason to think that vivisectus excellent essay isn't true?

That was a long post, I doubt he's read it.
Borealis, you are an Admin at this forum.  And half the time you act like the junior highers here with your insulting comments.  You really should grow up and start acting like an Admin.

Yes, I read it.  I am voracious reader ... probably read more than most people here ... it's just that I don't read :yuck: books :yuck: very much.

Read Pingu's last post.

That wsn't an insult, but an observation. You could not continue with your bizarre defense of slavery (now via Calhoun) if you'd actually read vivisectus' posts, or any of the slave narratives that have been linked, and you would not even consider comparing factory work with real slavery.

I doubt you're a voracious reader.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #564
Here's a handy chart of American military deaths ...

Wars ranked by total number of U.S. military deaths[edit]
Rank War Years Deaths Deaths per Day U.S. Population in First Year of War Deaths per Population
1 American Civil War 1861-65 750,000 (both U.S. and Confederate)[26] 420 31,443,000 2.385% (1860)
2 World War II 1941-45 405,399 297 133,402,000 0.307% (1940)
3 World War I 1917-18 116,516 279 103,268,000 0.110% (1920)
4 Vietnam War 1961-75 58,209 11 179,323,175 0.032% (1970)
5 Korean War 1950-53 54,246 45 151,325,000 0.036% (1950)
6 American Revolutionary War 1775-83 25,000 11 2,500,000 1.00% (1780)
7 War of 1812 1812-15 15,000 15 8,000,000 0.207% (1810)
8 Mexican-American War 1846-48 13,283 29 21,406,000 0.057% (1850)
9 Iraq War/Afghanistan Wars 2001- 2014 7,222 2 294,043,000 0.002% (2010)
10 Philippine-American War 1899-1902 4,196 3.8 72,129,001 0.006% (1900)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #565
Dave: do you have any reason to think that vivisectus excellent essay isn't true?

That was a long post, I doubt he's read it.
Borealis, you are an Admin at this forum.  And half the time you act like the junior highers here with your insulting comments.  You really should grow up and start acting like an Admin.

Yes, I read it.  I am voracious reader ... probably read more than most people here ... it's just that I don't read :yuck: books :yuck: very much.

Read Pingu's last post.

That wsn't an insult, but an observation. You could not continue with your bizarre defense of slavery (now via Calhoun) if you'd actually read vivisectus' posts, or any of the slave narratives that have been linked, and you would not even consider comparing factory work with real slavery.

I doubt you're a voracious reader.
"Bizarre defense of slavery" ... let me ask you something ... do YOU personally think Calhoun's slaves were horribly mistreated?  Mistreated at all?  Why do you think many of them agreed to be employees after the war?  Under your theory, they should have run out and hugged and kissed and thanked Union soldiers and run as far away from Calhoun's farm as possible.  Oh but wait ... the newspaper account says that one slave child actually HID from Union soldiers.

Your problem is you don't want TRUTH.

You want YOUR NARRATIVE.  And you want to force feed it onto everyone in your little dominion here.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #566
Dave: do you have any reason to think that vivisectus excellent essay isn't true?
No not at the moment.  But I do wonder if John C Calhoun was just ignorant of this type of horrible mistreatment?  Or what?  From the reporter's account, it does seem that Calhoun's slaves were at least as happy as any factory workers in the North if not more.  And it's not true that his slaves did not get paid.  In fact, they were given their own land and were allowed to run their own mini-farms.  And many of them were hired at the Calhoun plantation as employees after the war.  (One could ask if they had a better or worse life under this arrangement) Calhoun seemed to be THE VOICE for the South and one would think a man like that would be aware of horrible mistreatment such as that described.  Any ideas why Calhoun appears oblivious to this sort of stuff?
^^^^^^^

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #567
Borealis, like pre civil war Northern politicians, has an agenda. She's a controller. And she will use slavery or whatever else is available to her to advance her controlling agenda.

Is her horror about slavery genuine? Or is it contrived? One would not be able to tell from her words alone but only by observing her actions in her own hometown.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #568
Calhoun makes the argument that African slaves in the south were better off than those remaining in Africa. And like all blanket statements, this one is probably partially true and partially false. It is probably true that some Africans had better lives in the South because their oppression in Africa was worse. But it is quite true that many slaves in the south were horribly mistreated and it's hard to imagine that there mistreatment would have been worse back in Africa.

  • Fenrir
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #569
Borealis, like pre civil war Northern politicians, has an agenda. She's a controller. And she will use slavery or whatever else is available to her to advance her controlling agenda.

Is her horror about slavery genuine? Or is it contrived? One would not be able to tell from her words alone but only by observing her actions in her own hometown.

Why David, how despicably manipulative of you.
It's what plants crave.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #570
Oh come on.  Most adults - not just 12 year olds - think "north was good - no slavery, south was bad - slavery, Lincoln was a hero" and they go on their merry way never even thinking about questions of state's rights and sovereignty and the horrors of war as a means of solving problems and so on.

There are indeed plenty of low-information people such as yourself. Most of them, though, are capable of learning more and are not immune to new information, and do not insist on reducing their own history to a convenient, simple little narrative.

You seem to be. I just finished explaining why it is silly to see the civil war as a simple case of federal overreach, based on the known facts. First thing you do is mindlessly repeat "states rights!" and "sovereignty!" like some sort of alt-right robot.

But lets face it - as a really short and super-simple version, as the children's version, it does the job. Southern slavery WAS incredibly immoral. Chattel slavery just is. It was the main thing the south was fighting to keep: they said so themselves. And that was wrong of them, pure and simple. Only the real weird racists who argue slavery was good for black people disagree with that one.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #571
One point that I will always disagree with Calhoun on is his view of the inferiority of certain races.

All humans are created equal and should be given equal respect and equal opportunity.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #572
And I happen to believe that this equal respect and equal treatment will never occur under either system, the South's or the North's.

An entirely new system is needed.

And that in part is what my life work is about.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #573
"There are indeed plenty of low-information people such as yourself."

I happen to believe that I am one of the high information people and you are one of the low-information people.

And the reason I believe that is because I think I understand better than you do how to achieve actual equality for all people of all races, colors, and creeds.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #574
I am not convinced that you actually even have a desire for all people to be treated equally and fairly. What evidence from your own life can you give that you have a desire for all people to be treated equally?