Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: I guess I subconsciously just wanted to comment on some shit.

Topic: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War? (Read 8852 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #850
If government by the people was really desired by the English colonists, then they would need look no further than the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Many colonial leaders were aware of this Confederacy including Ben Franklin. Have you read Charles mann's :yuck: book? :yuck:

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #851
i will never read a book

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #852
Uh oh.    I liked another one of his posts.
I assume that means you appreciate the fact that you got an answer to your question. Right?
don't assume things. You have a history of making bad assumptions.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #853
Uh oh.    I liked another one of his posts.
I assume that means you appreciate the fact that you got an answer to your question. Right?
don't assume things.
It was a question, actually.
Quote
You have a history of making bad assumptions.
no u
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #854
Worth repeating and emphasizing the following....


Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #855
and why did the North want to hold on to the Southern States? What was to be gained?

read better:

this was also a pretext though. the underlying motive was one of political credibility as a sovereign entity: one doesn't get taken seriously as a union of states if that union can be sundered whenever any of the states want out.


Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #856
/thread

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #857
can someone who's read the thread tell me why this moron thinks he won something?

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #858
/thread
So, the war was fought over slavery, right?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #859
can someone who's read the thread tell me why this moron thinks he won something?
The key word is moron.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #860
If government by the people was really desired by the English colonists, then they would need look no further than the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Many colonial leaders were aware of this Confederacy including Ben Franklin. Have you read Charles mann's :yuck: book? :yuck:
I read "1493" but I can't say I learned a lot of detail about the governance of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from it.

I did learn this from Haudenosee Confederacy Constitution (online)

Quote
Treason or Secession of a Nation

92. If a nation, part of a nation, or more than one nation within the Five Nations should in any way endeavor to destroy the Great Peace by neglect or violating its laws and resolve to dissolve the Confederacy, such a nation or such nations shall be deemed guilty of treason and called enemies of the Confederacy and the Great Peace.

It shall then be the duty of the Lords of the Confederacy who remain faithful to resolve to warn the offending people. They shall be warned once and if a second warning is necessary they shall be driven from the territory of the Confederacy by the War Chiefs and his men.

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • uncool
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #861
can someone who's read the thread tell me why this moron thinks he won something?
Because he thinks that your "underlying motive" is exclusive with slavery being a "primary cause", rather than the two being inextricably bound.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #862
Lol ... no I wasn't half wrong ... note the question in the OP ... was the slavery issue the PRIMARY cause of the Civil War ... And the answer is a bit subjective it seems.

Hahaha what a sad little weasel you are. It is not a bit subjective. In fact, it is about as objectively true as history gets: the evidence is overwhelming. Everything points that way: socio-economic developments, political developments... right down to the actual secession documents. Slavery was the one factor without which the war would not have happened: the primary cause.

 
Quote
Certainly a fundamental difference between north and south was that in the south, slavery was an official institution which allowed for some horrific consequences like packing slaves on ships like sardines and beating them to near death for infractions and making them do hard physical labor for 16 hours a day and so on.
 

Wrong again - you are confusing the horrors of the middle passage, which was part of the international slave trade, with slavery as it was practiced in the South. That trade had already been banned.


Quote
But the north had it's own style of human oppression and in some ways was worse than the average condition of the southern black slave from what I have read. 

Even if it was true, it would still have nothing to do with slavery being the primary cause of the war. You are waffling.

Quote
So I will grant you that a significant reason for SECESSION was the Institution of Slavery in the South, but not "enslaving of humans" generally, because both sides did that using different styles. 

Nonsense. Even if you accept your weird definition of industrial wage-earning as slavery, that still does not change the fact that chattel slavery was the primary cause. Country A can declare that country B is oppressing a group of people and declare war because of it - even if someone else feels they are being oppressors themselves. This is a complete fallacy.

Quote
WAR had a deeper cause and in my opinion was caused by greed.  Fear is a closely related emotion "What if I lose all these slaves?  How will I ever live?"

No! It had a deeper cause, and that was "bloodthirstiness".

This is just a pathetic attempt to escape into meaningless generalities, you sad, sad little man.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #863
"political credibility as a sovereign entity"

Ah yes.

Aka "we are in the cool Club. Don't f*** with us."

Pride.

Greed.

Strutting like a peacock on the world stage.

Wonderful qualities that we should all be teaching our children to emulate.


  • uncool
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #864
"political credibility as a sovereign entity"

Ah yes.

Aka "we are in the cool Club. Don't f*** with us."

Pride.

Greed.

Strutting like a peacock on the world stage.

Wonderful qualities that we should all be teaching our children to emulate.



This is just a pathetic attempt to escape into meaningless generalities, you sad, sad little man.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #865
I am not in a position to say that Lincoln was the worst president in US history. I suspect that Lincoln wanted to do good for the country and I suspect he worked very hard to try to do what he believed was the right thing. I do believe it was a mistake to not let the South go and secede peacefully. I think eradicating slavery could have been accomplished in better ways. I think his critical bad decision that Lit the fire of the war was the decision to resupply Fort Sumter. I think he should have said hey, South Carolina has a right to secede, and it doesn't make sense for the feds to own property there anymore, let them have Fort Sumter. I also think he had no idea what the human cost of War would be.

Lincoln did let the South secede peacefully. In fact South Carolina had seceded before he was inaugurated, and it was clear that more southern states would follow. In his inaugural address Lincoln said:

Quote
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. . . . In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

Lincoln kept his word; the Civil War did not begin because the US government attacked the South, rather the South attacked the US government. If the South had not attacked it seems clear that Lincoln would have worked to bring about a peaceful reversal of secession.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #866

Pride.

Greed.

Strutting like a peacock on the world stage.

Wonderful qualities that we should all be teaching our children to emulate.



Why are you describing Donald Trump? I thought you liked, and emulated Him?

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #867
If government by the people was really desired by the English colonists, then they would need look no further than the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Many colonial leaders were aware of this Confederacy including Ben Franklin. Have you read Charles mann's :yuck: book? :yuck:
Also the Swiss Republic, which was already 500 years old at the time.
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #868
"political credibility as a sovereign entity"

Ah yes.

Aka "we are in the cool Club. Don't f*** with us."

Pride.

Greed.

Strutting like a peacock on the world stage.

Wonderful qualities that we should all be teaching our children to emulate.
Are you someone children should emulate Dave? With you lies and willfull ignorance?
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #869
can someone who's read the thread tell me why this moron thinks he won something?
Because he thinks that your "underlying motive" is exclusive with slavery being a "primary cause".

well it's fairly common knowledge that the union's principle war aim didn't have anything to do with abolition until a few years into the war. i guess the idea here is that hypothetically the north didn't have to fight the civil war and so the reason for the war reduces to northern motives. on the other hand, there's no universe in which seceding from a political union with no actual explicit provision allowing it and a central government that does not accept the theory of any such implicit right wouldn't result in a war. so the south knew what it was getting into.

still. the question of northern motives is important. what i presented shouldn't be taken as the only reasons. i'm not an expert on the civil war so i can't really come to a conclusion on that. they were the political reasons and the ones that most interest me. but all of this is complex. see, we often present the issue in such a way as to make the south look like a bunch of flighty lunatic babies, jumping at lincoln's shadow like he's some kind of rabid abolitionist when he really wasn't, in practice, quite so ardent about it.

this misses two important things:
1. the history of conflict over slavery in the US up to 1860 is the history of the south bullying the federal government into getting its way and succeeding because the opposition party valued maintaining the union at all costs.
2. lincoln may not have been a radical abolitionist, but his party...

prior to the civil war, we know about the various "compromises" over slavery. they actually go back to the revolution. some people wanted to end slavery in making a new nation (or nations) but making the revolution about that would have ensured that the south remained loyal and resulted in the war for independence likely failing completely. this set the mold. we see this further with the 3/5th compromise in the constitution, where we were apparently willing to entertain the fanciful notion that unfree non-citizen human property were at least 60% of a citizenry in terms of how many representatives a state should get. this was a transparent power grab for the south (based on the even more fanciful notion of masters virtually representing their slaves as if they were children), and nothing more, but accepted to make the whole thing work.

again and again this plays out. really 1860 was not the first time the south made noises about seceding. they used it as a bargaining tool and got their way. even on the eve of the civil war, they tried for a compromise: they said, we'll call off this whole secession thing, just give us basically everything we want. that they thought any such thing was plausible tells you a lot about how this shit went down previously. the problem was that the opposition they faced was very different from before.

it's hard to understand now but in 1860 the republican party was really the most progressive political force in the US. they were an explicitly abolitionist party. and while they varied in their zeal for abolition, they weren't elected to the presidency and to control of the house to play nice with slaveholders. so lincoln rejected that shit out of hand.

see, while lincoln may not have been in a rush to immediately abolish slavery, his party was another story. there was a real radical element to it that saw great promise for the destruction of slavery. while the federal government couldn't abolish it in any of the states, they could do two things which would slowly strangle it to death: prevent new slave states from joining the union and shut down the interstate slave trade. and they were within striking distance of being able to do exactly that without any opposition, and probably could have started laying the groundwork right away.

so the south really was faced with a choice here: accept the new political order in which you don't get what you want and indeed the prior state of affairs is reversed in that you will have to fight harder and harder every decade just to hold onto what slavery you have as it slowly withers and dies... or secede. and the radical republicans were willing to provoke that because if the south seceded, then they would in turn by brought back into the union by force, in which case the north would dictate the terms. so, put up with slavery dying slowly, or try us in war and get it taken away immediately. that was the bargain.

while the mainstream union war aim was just to bring the south back into the union at first... it would be wrong to think that the north didn't care about abolishing slavery or didn't see an opportunity for that in the war from the beginning. certainly enough of them did to legitimately spook the south into seceding.

eta for more info:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/08/the-war-of-northern-aggression
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/09/a-war-of-emancipation
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/slavery-civil-war-republicans-confederacy-abolition-lincoln

eta2: wow this second article makes all the republicans, including lincoln, out to be a lot more radical than i remember.
  • Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 10:40:18 AM by the idea of Harambe

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #870
Lincoln kept his word; the Civil War did not begin because the US government attacked the South, rather the South attacked the US government. If the South had not attacked it seems clear that Lincoln would have worked to bring about a peaceful reversal of secession.

see i'm honestly not really sure about this. what lincoln says is one thing, what the rest of the government will accept is another. and even if the south "shot first" at fort sumter, the idea of the united states keeping military bases in the states that left the union is the sort of thing that was bound to induce conflict. no matter what lincoln might have wanted in the short term, it seems to me that everyone knew where shit was going in the long term.

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #871
Still seems to me like slavery was the central issue.

Some might even call it the primary cause of the civil war.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #872
/thread
:facepalm:

Your reading comprehension has failed you yet again.

And this thread was over after the first few pages.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #873
If government by the people was really desired by the English colonists, then they would need look no further than the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Many colonial leaders were aware of this Confederacy including Ben Franklin. Have you read Charles mann's :yuck: book? :yuck:
Also the Swiss Republic, which was already 500 years old at the time.

they pretty much looked to england though. like it was the perceived loss of the political rights of englishmen that originally animated them.

  • JonF
Re: Was the Slavery Issue the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
Reply #874
and why did the North want to hold on to the Southern States? What was to be gained?

read better:

this was also a pretext though. the underlying motive was one of political credibility as a sovereign entity: one doesn't get taken seriously as a union of states if that union can be sundered whenever any of the states want out.

Who said that?  Why do you consider that person an authority?
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins