The OP didn’t ask about the Civil War, it asked about the Confederate cause. The North’s reasons don’t signify.
Talking about “the Southern way of life” is just rephrasing “slavery”. Yes, their entire way of life was built around it - that means it was about it.
I just wanted to tip my hat to TrueCelt’s post #15, about how the arts can help teach us what is difficult to fully grasp in school, with its “both sides” conundrum.
Which they did, and it was not John Brown or abolition. They were fighting to save their country.
Before anyone mentions that Southerners willingly volunteered for the Cause and Northerners had to be drafted into the military, note that plenty of Northerners volunteered, and there was a draft in the South for much of the war too.
Fortunately we don’t have to wonder how U.S. Grant would have responded to this poll. He made his feelings clear in his memoirs:
“I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”
Unfortunately “Whataboutism” is considered a valid argument by all too many people today. Esp. when the “Whatabout” they are pointing to isn’t anywhere on the scale of the issue they are trying to distract from.
I’d never seen it before – thanks for the link. That letter is absolute genius.
The Confederacy started drafting soldiers more than a year before the United States did.
Roma were also held in race based slavery in Romania until the 1860s, but it was a cross between slavery and feudal serfdom. It was, however, race based.
And I think you need to do a lot of research on the origins of the Republican Party.
I’ll point out the obvious flaw in your belief that the Republican Party was made up of abolitionists; the Republican Party didn’t support abolition. In fact, the Republicans repeatedly went on record saying they were opposed to abolition. They said they had no plans to abolish slavery in any state where it existed.
That’s true, but the Republicans had a lot of abolitionists. However, at that time, they were willing to compromise on stopping the spread of slavery into new states. That was indeed a Abolitionist goal.
That’s pretty messed up. I don’t know much about it but I did a little reading and it seems like a very interesting situation… it sounds like the Roma slaves were used for crafting and blacksmithing more than simple labor, and we’re actually valued for their expertise? But at the same time were considered subhuman… it’s a twisted social dynamic. I couldn’t imagine a Southern slave owner with respect for black craftsmanship as a cultural trait, even if he had a very skilled slave in his own plantation. I’m not sure if that makes the Romanian slave owners more or less horrifying…
Regardless - even if we can find a few more examples of chattel slavery in the European/Colonial world aside from the Confederacy, Brazil, or Romania, it was definitely on its way out, and is no longer excusable by arguing “oh, it was just the times they lived in!”, if that was ever a real excuse.
The slavers of the Old South knew perfectly well what they were doing was wrong, that’s why they put such a tremendous effort into manufacturing excuses and justifications for it. People without guilty consciences don’t bother with that, especially on the scale they did.
I agree with this.
I think they realized that it had gotten completely out of hand, and they genuinely had no idea how or if it could possibly end well.
It didn’t
All right, all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us?
About halfway through the thread I realized that what we’re seeing is a species of whataboutism. It is easily demonstrable that only the south wanted war, and the reason they wanted war was because they wanted to continue slavery, and the reason they wanted to continue slavery was to profit astronomically from stolen labor.
Yet some people think they’re making a point by saying “The North didn’t actually care about slavery all that much! Some people didn’t care at all!”
I didn’t say that the Romans didn’t accomplish lots of wonderful things. And it’s not like the world suddenly got better when the Roman Empire fell. For most of the people living in that part of the world, things got much worse for a very long time.
We can recognize that, while also recognizing that many of those wonderful things the Romans brought came at a very high cost of human lives ended and human lives wasted in servitude.
Easily demonstrable?
So what you’re saying is that the US would have allowed the Southern states to secede in perpetual peace, if only the Confederates hadn’t fired on Fort Sumter?
I don’t buy that for a millisecond, nor do I think any thinking person would.
I don’t understand how anyone can justify that answer. So, if Illinois suddenly decided to allow the sex trafficking of teenaged girls as a form of raising tax revenue, this should be allowed because their “states’ rights” supercede human rights and the spirit of our nation’s constitution?!
I would like those 4 people to explain this, please.
Well, the roads go without saying.
I’d say it myself, but Tacitus said it better.