In this GQ thread, it was suggested that the Civil War discussion be spun off into another thread.
I think that’s a good suggestion, so here it is. If you haven’t already done so, you may want to read the other thread (warning - long) before participating in this one.
I haven’t read the other thread (apologies), but I’ll weigh in anyway. If there are specifics from the other thread you think are relevant to the discussion, by all means bring in.
No, of course not. Rarely are any great events like the Civil War all about any one thing. It was a bunch of things, with slavery simply being one of the major flash points that ignited the conflict. I’d say, if you want to try and pin point a root cause, the entire war was about states rights and states sovereignty vs states being subject to and under a federal system.
-XT
Bullshit
States rights was/is the red herring used to excuse the attempt by the confederacy to secede in an attempt to continue a policy of enslaving human beings
It was 99% about slavery and muddying the waters in insulting and disingenuous.
This post is from the other thread:
I don’t think there would have been a Civil War if there was no slavery.
However, I do think that there would not have been a Civil War if Lincoln had lost the election in 1860, at least not immediately. Remember, the southern states did not secede because Lincoln tried to free the slaves. The southern states seceded only based on the fact that Lincoln won the election. Lincoln even said publicly that the southern states could keep their slaves, if that’s what it took to hold the country together. The southern states however knew that Lincoln was very much opposed to slavery, and the Republicans weren’t going to allow it in the western territories. This was going to shift the balance of power in Washington in favor of the north, so the southern states didn’t even give Lincoln a chance. They seceded without even attempting any sort of compromise that would let them keep their slaves.
Now, if someone else had won (Breckinridge, maybe), a lot depended on what happened in the next four years. If things kept going the way they had been going, the 1864 election would have been a repeat of the 1860 election, and if the northern candidate had won again the Civil War very well could have just started in 1865 instead of 1861. But that is no guarantee that there still would have been a war. A lot can happen in four years.
I also think that the Civil War would not have happened if the northern and southern representatives had tried to work together to settle their differences instead of engaging in the political back and forth bullying that characterized the 1840s and 1850s (especially the 1850s).
So, while I can’t think of a scenario that would have ended in a Civil War without slavery, I can think of at least two scenarios in which the war could have been avoided with slavery.
Well…the Confederate states wanted the right to continue with their slave economies. Lincoln made it clear that he was against expansion of slavery to new states. The South saw the writing on the wall and decided to secede. I don’t know how one could examine the Reconstruction period, including the Reconstruction Amendments, and conclude that the autonomy of the individual states wasn’t greatly curtailed.
Without the Civil War, the U.S. government would never have achieved the degree of centralization that it did.
Not really, no. It’s a debatable issue, and there are plenty of historians who would disagree with your blithe assertion that it’s all bullshit.
Again, no, it wasn’t a red herring. There were all kinds of reasons that varied from state to state for why some went one way (economic disparity, industrial vs agrarian, etc), and some the others on whether or not to secede from the Union. Slavery was only ONE of the issues. Oh, it was a major issue (especially the aspect about whether new states joining the Union would be slave or free, or if they would even get the choice), but it wasn’t the only issue, and the rest red herrings as you put it. That’s a really simplistic view you have there on what was a very complex and intricate issue, and one that took decades to build up to.
I’ll thank you for not calling me a liar and that I’m insulting anyone. This isn’t the Pit. If you feel I’m a racist asshole who is deliberately lying about this, feel free to start a Pit thread and call me out there. Otherwise, stick to the issue. If you have some kind of proof to back up your assertions that the Civil War was 99% about slavery (:dubious:) feel free to provide it. Otherwise you are simply asserting numbers out of the air.
-XT
Plenty of people dispute the moon landing, thery’re still full of shit.
It is not a simplistic view any more than to say that the cause of WWII was the imperialistic expansion ambitions of the axis powers. You can get bogged down in the minutia all you want but it serves to do nothing more than to fail to address the true issue.
Please point out where I attacked you personally as opposed to an idea.
Ah, but you have failed to demonstrate (thus far) that belief in the moon landing hoax equates to reasoned thought concerning the fact that there were more issues involved in the Civil War than simply slavery. You have ASSERTED this, but you haven’t DEMONSTRATED it. Feel free to do so, instead of constructing BS equivocations between CT’s and reasoned historical debate.
But like the Civil War, the causes of WWII were myriad and complex. You are trying (unsuccessfully IMHO, FWIW) to boil them down a single simplistic cause. Sadly, human events are rarely so easily boiled down, and the Civil War is not one of those infrequent cases.
Be more precise then. I took this ‘It was 99% about slavery and muddying the waters in insulting and disingenuous’ to mean you were talking about me…not the argument.
-XT
Just to be clear here, since I got a PM from someone who seemed to think otherwise:
I am not saying the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. I’m not even saying that slavery wasn’t the majority issue that led to the war. I personally think most of the war was about slavery
All I am saying is that the civil war wasn’t all about slavery. There were other contributing factors.
The list isn’t:
The list (IMHO) is more like:
I’m more than happy to put a number of 80 to 90 percent on number one on that list, and I have absolutely no cite at all to back that number up, so if you argue with it all I can say is pick your own number. Just don’t pick 100 (again, IMHO).
Well, FWIW, here are the top causes according to About.com (a reputable site if ever I’ve seen one! ;)):
Personally, I think the last one is more a cause/effect type ‘reason’, and I wouldn’t have included it in the list, but that’s just me and I am no Civil War or even history expert.
-XT
Slavery wasn’t the only issue, but it was a major issue. Much like capitalism/communism wasn’t the only issue, but it was the major issue (and easiest issue to “point at”) in the cold war.
here is a decent read, although Ive only skimmed it.
There were a lot if differences between the North and South, more than there are today. Slavery was a giant one, but not the only one, and not the only thing that contributed to the American Civil War.
I quite honestly do not know what you’re trying to say here, please don’t take this as snarky because I don’t mean it that way.
In response to what I think your point is; my intent was not to:
but simply to point out that a lot of people believe a lot of crazy shit and that does not make it true.
Oh good lord. We could argue about the implications of Germany’s humiliation in WWI and then go back to the instigation of WWI and the role of Bavaria, blah, blah, blah (ad infinitum).
Again: You can get bogged down in the minutia all you want but it serves to do nothing more than to fail to address the true issue.
I said precisely what I meant. You misunderstood.
PS – honestly, no bad feelings on my part – no snark intended
OK - on re-thinking…
The 99% was an overt exaggertaion on my part. Admitted.
71% of statistics are made up on the fly.
The war was about states’ rights. Slavery was a major manifestation of where there was conflict between those rights and the power of the federal government. But the issue almost came to blows decades before—the late twenties IIRC. Georgia (I’m pretty sure it was) had found that there was silver over the state line to the west. The line was drawn by federal treaty with the Cherokees (again, if I remember correctly). The feds told Georgians that they had to stay out. Georgians thought they had the right to expand into a territory that was not another state. (Yes, Native Americans were given no thought. Sad, but true.) This kept going back and forth with the heat rising. I recall reading that Georgia made every one entering the state swear an oath of allegiance to the laws of the state. And refusal to do so might result in being jailed or shot. I forgot how the hostility was reduced, but I think Georgians just continued to push westerly and the Cherokee left.
So, it is right to stay that it was a states’ rights issue. If there was no westward expansion, and question as to whether those new territories were to be slavery free or not, war may have been averted. And if you go back to The Founders, I think that those who drafted the Articles of Confederacy and, later, ratified the Constitution, would not have ratified it if they thought the federal government would have so much power over the states.
And yet although the southern states were abused time and time again :rolleyes: secession was never attempted until slavery was outlawed.
There was exactly one right the Confederacy was willing to go to war over.
You need to dial it back a lot.
Despite your later protestations that you were replying to some vaguely unidentified other parties who just may have held an inaccurate position on the topic, the way this post is laid out, specifically quoting xtisme, gives the very strong impression that you were attacking him.
There is also no reason for the violence of your post, given that yours was the third post in the thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Maybe you’re right. And maybe all the other stuff kind of got resolved on its own over the years. Like the issue I mentioned. Maybe it was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. I don’t really understand the need to believe that it was 98% about slavery. IMO. that’s the one stance that seems to like it must be wrong. There were other reasons. And keep in mind, only a small number of southerners owned slaves.
While I tend to agree with your general view, you might want to actually get your facts straight before you attempt to support your argument. Slavery was not outlawed prior to the secession.
A significant portion of the South had worked itself into a secessionist frenzy even before the 1860 election, with a majority of Southern Democrats choosing to break the Democratic Party, (thereby handing the election to the newly unified Republicans), in May, 1860, long before Lincoln was elected and at a time when no Federal law had been passed to suppress slavery in any state where it already existed.
Wow!
I never thought my post would have been thought of as “violent”.
Quoting xtisme was not an intent to attack him/her, but the idea posted.
I believe that prior to tomndebb’s post I attempted to express to xtisme that I have no personal adverse feelings twards him/her. I hope xtisme understands but I’ll bow out of this thread now.