>>64772 Hello, /lit/ They fought for states rights, primarily to own slaves. The federal government had gained increasingly more and more power and was overstepping its boundaries into state territory. As you can see today, the federal government was not kept in check and now has ridiculous overreach
>everybody in the north was against slavery >Lincoln didn't commit war crimes >Lincoln was against slavery because of humanitarian reasons >the north is he squeaky clean hero here >implying
The CSA is one of the most shit-tier states in human history.
>Early to mid 1800s >Slavery flourishes in the Southern USA. >Complete Abolishment remains a minority opinion. >Northeners don't want to use Federal Law to put escaped slaves back into slavery. >Northerners don't want slavery in new western territories. >All of this is a step too far, because they consider owning people to be an integral part of their culture. >Southerners get so buttmad over this that they secede and go to war with the North. >It's the bloodiest war in American history. >The south is ruined for an entire generation.
>So cheap and lazy that they needed slaves, despite the south being the poorest region of the states. >So insecure that they needed a group to exist as a lower caste, and still have to be kept from trying to enforce a caste system in the 20th and 21st century. >So adamant about these things that they WENT TO WAR WITH OTHER AMERICANS OVER IT.
>There are people alive today in 2015 who look at them as heroes.
Race-based slavery is built right into the CSA constitution, right between habeas corpus and some limits on taxation. It was absolutely a founding principal of the confederacy and there's no denying it.
I don't know much about this so maybe someone else can weigh in, but would it be fair to say the CSA constitution allows states LESS autonomy since it specifically disallows them from passing their own laws re: slavery?
>>64772 Well the fat cat slave owners at the top did. The farmers who made up the majority of the Confederate army for the most part had no slaves and fought for the protection of their state. America before the Civil War was almost like the EU, each state viewed itself as its own country, which is why Lee chose to fight for the south, even though he really felt like the North was right. The war, and Lincoln's extreme measures to preserve the Union, killed this and ushered in Nationalism for America.
>>65040 I don't think anyone is implying those implications, they're just old what-aboutist strawmen neoconfederates love to spout. The civil war was fought pretty dirty towards the end, but that's not just on the north and it's not unusual either.
>>65100 People lower than middle class may not have owned slaves, but they still considered racial hierarchy to be an important part of their culture (see: The next 100+ years of race relations in the south.)
>>65125 When you raise people in monkey cages, they chimp out. We're 150 years out of slavery and around 40-50 years out of Jim Crow. And that's ignoring the fact that the South's economy has been pretty shit since forever. For all the way people shit on southerners (black and white), it's honestly amazing that they've come so far at all given their history.
>>65069 >CSA was shit because they had slavery and I don't like that The north had slavery. The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the south, so there were still slaves in the north after the war >they considered owning people to be an integral part of their culture Yes, because of all the slaves from the plantations got freed it would destroy the South's economy. And it did >southerners go to war No the south seceded and left it at that and then the north said "fuck you're still part of the US" and refused to move its troops from a foreign country they also invaded first in manassas >the south was ruined for a generation Decades after >so cheap >so lazy >so insecure Nice ad hominems bro >muh caste system >even now in 2015 ITS THE CURRENT YEAR AND PEOPLE THINK WHAT THEY THINK
>>65117 I'm not sure about this. The civil war didn't start with a northern invasion, remember, it started with a southern secession. Most confederate soldiers didn't personally own slaves, but they fought for the preservation of a social order where they were categorically better than all blacks. They had a stake in that and tb.h I sympathize, I can't say I would have been better if I was raised in that world. But to suggest the average southerner had no particular emotional stake in slavery is too far I think.
>>65097 >Avrage joe in the army was probably more motivated by defending his home. hell even Robert E Lee was wishy washy on slavery and fought for the CSA because he was from Virginia and not because he actually wanted the CSA to break away.
>>64772 Not true. The south didn't segregate blacks who weren't slaves. The North did.
All of this racial supremacy goes back further, to when the poorest whites were slaves and not merely serfs. They were freed because the ruling class declared it wasn't fitting that whites were slaves. Why? To divide the lower classes, to prevent or weaken any uprising.
Also in almost in all of the ordinances of secession in the states (especially Texas), almost every one of them stated the inferiority of Blacks and that slavery was beneficial and that was their reason for seceding.
>>65256 That's looking at it with the hindsight view of secession being illegal. It was an unprecedented move that was decided for the most part by planters. I will concede there may have been some that wanted to keep the status quo for those reasons, but most I think were just content with living their lives on farms in solitude. Plus you had whites that actively fought against the south within the south, particularly in Appalachia. West Virginia was the most famous example, but each state within the mountains essentially had its own personal civil war with their mountainfolk population.
Your whole argument there is that the south was dumb and the northern slave states weren't
The north didn't have to go to war just because of secession. They could have tried diplomacy but Lincoln stated he would do anything to keep the country together so fuck it, he went to war and violated habeus corpus and blockaded the south and razed it and did all he could to beat the south into submission
>>65117 "Even though he really felt like the north was right" is a gross overstatement of Lee's feelings. As a very conservative man he abhorred the idea of a revolutionary secession, but held the North accountable for the wrongdoing.
He was a good Christian and a gentleman who wanted nothing less than a war, but he certainly didn't think the yankees actions justified or that they had any moral highground to speak of.
His own words on the matter are quite nuanced and can be read here: https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/robert-e-lee-slavery-secession-and-the-choice-he-made/
>>65517 Secession was unprecedented in the most basic sense of the word: there was absolutely 0 precedent to go off from. The Civil War became that precedent that made Secession treason and illegal in the eyes of the law.
>>64772 I am willing to offer a compromise on the issue. It is unquestionable that the primary intentions of the original seven states - South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas - was to protect slavery. They pretty much said so themselves in their declarations of independence, for reasons that were varied and sundry (Louisiana, for example, claimed that Whites could not possibly work in the semitropical conditions of their state, and so their state needed Black slaves. Apparently they missed the idea of keeping the Blacks working but just paying them and giving them rights. Southern education, folks). I think only Texas made any real claim about anything other than slavery, citing occasional Comanche raids and the like. But even still they through their lot in immediately with the other original seven Rebs, and did cite slavery as a reason for secession.
HOWEVER. I will allow that Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina really WERE in it for State's Rights, as they did not leave the Union until Lincoln called up an army to quell the rebellious South. As he was constitutionally entitled to do, but whatever, there was some debate on the matter that ultimately the Union one but which was unclear at the time.
So. If you claim to be Virginian, Arkansan, Tennessean, or North Carolinian, then you may make the claim of States Rights. Otherwise, no, you can't, and the Confederacy as a whole was, again, unquestionably about slavery.
>>65634 What other points? You dodged a mention of societal racism by saying the south couldn't survive without slavery (even though the war was fought preemptively and Lincoln didn't really try to free slaves initially). I don't think that's even worth mentioning.
>The north didn't have to go to war just because of secession. They could have tried diplomacy but Lincoln stated he would do anything to keep the country together so fuck it, he went to war and violated habeus corpus and blockaded the south and razed it and did all he could to beat the south into submission
What, would the South diplomatically come back into the United states?
>>65640 Naughty states that do things you don't like don't "deserve" self-determination?
The South would've come out ahead with healing its racial problems without the legacy of reconstruction and a defensive, paranoid South that exists as a disadvantaged minority within a wider American empire.
But once you've got millions of black folks on your soil, there are no longer easy solutions. What should the upright white Southerners of 1860 done in regards to their black brothers? The economic and political climate were not conducive to emancipation, but it had every reason to be within decades.
As for the South's strongarming of its poor citizens, i'm not really sure what to tell you. The evidence suggests Southerners supported their country by margins much higher than America enjoyed in its first independence war.
The Civil War kinda started because of a conspiracy theory, if you think about it. There was no intention to free the slaves, and yet every single Confederate state insisted they were seceding because of slavery. Whoops.
>>65596 >they only fought to preserve the Union. pretty much this the emancipation proclamation didn't even come about until 2 or 3 years into the war and was arguably more of an effort to bolster northern forces with free black men than an act of kindness also the fact the emancipation proclamation didn't do anything with the border states slaves
>>65750 You can't make a moral argument for self-determination in favor of a nation that was made to deny people self-determination. The CSA decided to play the victim because they imagined (not knew, imagined) that the federal government would stop them from doing something that they shouldn't have been doing to begin with.
>>65690 When America declared independence from Britain, the signers of the Declaration had a long list of twenty-seven abuses committed by Britain or the Crown, ranging from impressment to quartering of troops to taxation without representation to dissolving Colonial governing bodies to failing to adequately protect the Colonies from Indian raids to outright theft of local property and land, and so on.
When the Southern states withdrew, the most they could claim was that one day in the future, the USA might, in the Congress that they were a part of, vote according to the will of the majority of the USA, to abolish slavery. Also they cited some minor tax and tariff issues that, compared to what the Colonies had to deal with, was a pittance (and was, in any case, not without representation)
In any event, you're correct that the Revolution was cited by most of the South as precedent. The North disagreed for the reasons I brought up above. The issue was settled in Texas v. White, which I think was 1869. Basically Texas v. White decided that the matter can only really be decided on the field of battle. Which it was.
>>65634 >The north didn't have to go to war just because of secession.
The North didn't go to war at all. The South attacked a Federal convoy trying to supply Federal troops in a Federal fort that sat on Federal property that had been leased from South Carolina nearly sixty years previously at that point.
No, no one died, but that's not the point. Yes, Lincoln was baiting the South, but that's not the point. The South grabbed the bait, fired the first shots, and proceeded to get precisely what it deserved for picking a fight with the larger, wealthier, and more industrialized North.
>>65851 Well, okay, you can, but it makes you look stupid. It's like arguing that Christianity is a religion of peace and citing the Crusades and the Inquisition as examples instead of, say, Mother Theresa.
>>65906 The CSA wasn't created to deny people determination. It's not like there was a great coup to enslave the africans and create a neo-roman republic of latifundias and sweet-tea sipping patricians.
It was a conservative effort to preserve the status quo against fears of northern encroachment. The argument that this status quo was evil and deserved to be crushed by a foreign invader is objectionable. Slavery was centuries old, and would have continued for only decades longer. That doesn't hold much to the massive destruction, degeneration of a culture, and the occupation.
>>65822 >The south might of come back after negotiations yes
More come crawling back begging for re-admittance, one state at a time. The Confederate constitution was practically engineered for failure in a rapidly industrializing world, making it incredibly difficult for foreigners to invest or capitalists to start building factories. Its one saving grace was that it specifically protected the right of secession, so once the sinking ship became obvious states would probably have one by one left the Confederacy and either drawn up new Constitutions for themselves that fixed the problems and become minor nations in North America; or else tried to rejoin the North, which might have lost the cotton but still had the greater portion of American natural resources.
>>65988 >fears of northern encroachment Hence the term "the war of northern aggression"
>>65906 The thing is, we aren't arguing if slavery or owning people is moral or not. It's a matter of "did the federal government or any group of lobbyists in the north have the right to tell other independent states in the south what to do" I think no
>>66011 >actually forbid secession while largely being a slightly edited copy of the US constitution that provided for less protective tariffs
What meme is this?
The CSA did some incredible industrialization during the war anyway. People act like the CSA was the Ottoman Empire or the heathen Chinese when it wasn't less industrialized than Canada through the same time period.
I agree with racial supremacism but completely disagree with slavery. In 19th century it was already a prehistoric concept that did no good, other than keeping the yeomen poor as fuck and refusing to adopt new technologies.
Even if the CSA did win the war, they would eventually have to abolish slavery. There was no other way, it was just fucking obsolete and it has nothing to do with morals or social progressivism.
>>65982 >It wasn't federal property anymore, the state had seceded to its own country.
The State had left the Union but the fortress was built by the Feds, manned by the Feds, supplied by the Feds, and had been constructed on an island that was at the time leased by the Feds from South Carolina, which did not cease to exist and become a new South Carolina, but rather was the same South Carolina just under new overhead management. South Carolina never actually dissolved the lease, either - no, not even after seceding, they never said "this lease is now null and void." They instead tried to manipulate some of the wording of the lease to their advantage, but never actually sat down with Federal lawyers on the issue.
And regardless, this does not entitle them to open fire on a Federal convoy heading to a Federal fortress to supply Federal troops. The South fired the first shots of the war. Deal with it.
>>65988 > That doesn't hold much to the massive destruction, degeneration of a culture, and the occupation.
I love it when the South tries to bring this up too. Compared to what other nations would have done to rebellious states, the South was treated positively benignly by the victorious North. Hell, the North rushed to get the Southern states back into the Union, and this in spite of Boothe killing Lincoln! Only 10% of a state had to take a loyalty oath for that state to be readmitted to Congress, and all the Southern states had voting representatives in Congress again within 5 years!
>>66092 >>actually forbid secession while largely being a slightly edited copy of the US constitution that provided for less protective tariffs
Actually the editing is rather significant if you actually take the time to read it (I have). It's perfect for a primarily agrarian nation dependent on what amounts to a semi-feudal economy of land and people ownership. It's horribly set up for any kind of mass industrialization to echo and keep pace with what the North was achieving.
>when it wasn't less industrialized than Canada through the same time period.
That is not particularly industrialized, however. Ever seen Gone with the Wind? Remember towards the beginning of the movie when Ashley lists out the discrepencies between the North and the South in terms of factories, coal mines, rail lines, and so on? That's actually all accurate. Throughout the entire war, the South had only a single factory to produce artillery. Had it continued for even another sixth months they would have run out of gunpowder. Confederate troops frequently lacked uniforms because they didn't have the factories needed to produce them, and shoes, too, were in short supply.
>>66114 Possible, but given the make-up of the Confederacy and their absolute dedication to the ideals of States Rights, unlikely.
>>66198 >treated benignly Bull fucking shit that's like saying that Germany was treated nicely by the treaty of Versailles
They were hit with taxes upon taxes for as reparations because the north blamed them for the war, their entire economy was broken because slaves had been freed, every single person was broke as shit because the confederate dollar was now worthless, their railroads had been destroyed literally. Look up Sherman's bow ties, they would tear up railroad ties, heat them up, and then bend them around trees and leave them there. They destroyed what little railroads this newly industrialized country had, making transportation of goods impossible. Whole cities had been torched and we're now in rubble, not to mention Sherman's March to the sea where he set the fields on fire to destroy the crops and food of the south; the fields lied dead for years. Sherman also let his armies pillage and rape southern towns in his path, killing everything in his way, and after the war carpet naggers and opportunists came running to the south to exploit the already damaged country. They took Lees house from him and turned it into a graveyard, all politicians were fired and replaced with northern sympathizers, and the south has been demonized for 150 years afterwards. And you actually fucking think that the north treated the south benignly. Stupid fucking Yankees
>>66402 Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if the constitutional convention had been held while Jefferson was in the country, if all of this could have been avoided They purposely had it when he was in France because they knew he was a die hard anti federalist
Around 30% of families in most states that allowed slavery owned slaves. 1.6% only fits if you count the people who had sole ownership of a slave, and if you include the population of the states that banned slavery.
It also ignores the fact that most southerners had a vested interest in keeping a racial hierarchy with blacks at the bottom, regardless if they owned slaves or not.
>>66237 >enslaved based on the color of their skin
This didn't happen though. There was no law saying all blacks have to be slaves, or that a white man cannot be a slave. The vast majority slaves just happened to be black because of the availability of blacks on African slave markets.
>>66522 >It also ignores the fact that most southerners had a vested interest in keeping a racial hierarchy with blacks at the bottom, regardless if they owned slaves or not. While it's true that most whites thought blacks are inferior, the poor whites (majority) weren't in favor of slavery because it depressed their wages and benefitted only rich planters.
>>66415 Still about a million times better than what rebellious provinces in other countries could have expected.
>They destroyed what little railroads this newly industrialized country had, making transportation of goods impossible
Bullshit. The South relied primarily on river waterways for transportation of goods. The Southern rail system as it existed was designed primarily for short hauls of cotton to the nearest river or ocean post, not large-scale overland travel as it was in the North. The destruction of Southern rail lines had a large impact on Confederate troop movement during the war but a negligible impact on Southern economy after it.
>every single person was broke as shit because the confederate dollar was now worthless
The Confederate dollar had always been worthless. Even in 1863 a greyback was worth only 6 cents in gold. The Confederacy currency was a bill of credit, neither secured nor backed by any asset (like gold, silver, or even cotton or tobacco).
Also you're not citing any problems with RECONSTRUCTION. Anything Sherman did was during the War was jsut that: during the War, not problems with the Reconstruction that came after it.
>They took Lees house from him and turned it into a graveyard
Lee lead an army in rebellion against the Union. He was lucky he wasn't, rightly, tried for treason. Having his house taken away is pretty much literally the least the Union could do.
>>64772 Wait to start the thread off strong with an unbiased opinion OP. I'm sure that over 80% of men in the South fought and died for an institution which didn't benefit them in the slightest. It wasn't because many people felt that the federal government had grown too powerful and was overstepping it's boundaries. Also the North's invasion of the Confederacy wasn't a factor in the amount of Southern men who joined to fight. There is also the fact that the Republicans in the early years of the war didn't give two shits about emancipating slaves but instead wanted the revenue that the South generated (South generated most federal revenue because Government revenue back then came from tariffs on imports and the South possessed the largest ports).
>>66551 While true in the US...if you read the Confederate Constitution...
- The Confederate Constitution specifically uses the term "Negro Slave" whereas the US Constitution uses "Person(s) held to service or labor" - Article I Section 9(1) in both Constitutions ban the importation of slaves from from foreign countries, but the Confederate constitution makes a specific exception for negroes of the African race from the USA
>>66621 Hah, reminds me of a doonesbury comic about that. Let me see if I can find it
>>66645 >6 million Hello JIDF Please tell me what could be worse than everything I stated before? You also didn't say anything about the taxes, politicians placed in power of southern states, and carpet baggers
>>66704 Most of this stuff was already addressed ITT.
>30% of Southern families owned slaves, and most white southerners wanted to preserve racial hierarchy. >The north honestly never planned on banning slavery initially, and the South rebelled because Lincoln personally hated slavery and Southerners were afraid that he 'might' make it illegal.
>>66720 Perspective. Neo-Nazis, Reds, folk whistling Dixie...they all lack perspective.
...having said that, I whistle Dixie. Fun fact, it was Lincoln's favorite song. It was actually the most popular song in the USA in 1860s, its lyrics aren't actually racist at any point, and the Rebs taking it up as their anthem is a bit like a modern rebellion taking up some Taylor Swift song as their anthem.
>>64772 The Civil war was about states rights, but it was most accurately about states' right to not enforce the laws of another state. The main tension came from free states refusing to enforce fugitive slave laws, and also the issue of the expansion of slavery into the western territories, which usually came down to killing the person with a different opinion.
...when the Hell did I say anything that could even remotely be linked to the Holocaust, until this very post?
>>66765 >Please tell me what could be worse than everything I stated before?
Off the top of my head, mass executions of anyone not swearing an oath of loyalty to the US. As opposed to what actually happened, which was that a mere 10% of a state needed to do such for full readmittance as equal states to the Union.
>You also didn't say anything about the taxes
Pre-war, wealthy landowners were allowed to self-assess the value of their own land, making property tax collection nearly impossible. Post-war the Union actually enforced proper property tax assessment. If the Southern landowners were ruined because they owned more land then they could possibly have afforded had they ever actually been honest with the government, that was their own fault. The South had also frequently employed a capitation tax, i.e., a tax on workers employed. Blacks were valued at about 75 cents whereas whites were values at several dollars, which discouraged a free labor market and also kept taxes on wealthy landowners artificially low.
My point is that the South's economy had always been shit due to severely under-taxing the population. They just had hid it, and when the North came in and actually took stock of the situation and started charging the taxes that the region was actually supposed to be getting, poverty naturally followed. But it was poverty that was in just about every sense self-inflicted.
The taxes that the North imposed, in fact, were basically designed to force wealthy White landowners to either sell their land or have it repossessed, which would then allow said land to be redistributed to both the White poor and freed Blacks.
In other words, the taxes only hurt the wealthy white landowners, who were essentially being asked to pay real taxes for the first time and couldn't afford it due to their own fraudulent pre-war assessments.
>>65277 Not him but I fucked off from /pol/ because people kept sending me to reddit the moment I didn't agree with their opinions, here it's apparently the same only with people sending everyone to /pol/ instead. To think your ilk is any better than /pol/ is fucking ludicrous.
>>66912 Yes, and the Europeans being too arrogant to come and take notes on how we were utterly slaughtering each other and taking massive casualties because of outdated tactics was a big reason why they were so unprepared for World War I.
>>66912 >>66938 >>66943 There's a good reason armies fought like this until after WW1. Communications technology limited the ability of battlefield commanders to control large groups of men dispersed over a wide area. You were limited by line of sight range when it came to giving orders immediately, and for longer term orders you were limited by the speed of a man on horseback. Large formations were needed to maintain control of conscript troops.
>>66959 >My point is that the South's economy had always been shit due to severely under-taxing the population. They just had hid it, and when the North came in and actually took stock of the situation and started charging the taxes that the region was actually supposed to be getting, poverty naturally followed. But it was poverty that was in just about every sense self-inflicted.
Nothing in this mass of words resembled anything approaching a logically constructed argument. I challenge anyone to read this over and over and try to get some kind of useful information out of it.
>>64772 Here is my question what did the north do specifically to provoke a southern succession. I mean it's not like there was a law passed or even a threat to them owning their slaves. They only left because the balance of power had shifted away from him.
>>67061 >Welp time my taxes this year, >Hmm, I'll it's just worth four dollars, alright I'm done time to sit in and my chair and sip lemonade while other people work for me >Years later >What do you mean I actually to pay taxes >This is a violation of muh rights
>>67099 What the North "did" was basically what you said: fuck faster and be more attractive to immigrants, leading to larger populations, leading to more control of Congress. The system was a democracy and the only thing the North did was having a majority. That's how democracies WORK. Even still the North had been bending over backwards to accommodate the South for years.
No one in this thread knows anything. In the south you had three people, rich whites, poor whites and black slaves. The culture in the south focuses on the seemingly impossible social mobility in the south when in reality many poor whites were forced into indentured servitude. The south could not advocate race but on "southern culture" because anything else would bring the poor whites and black slaves to overthrow their rich minorities.
The states seceded because of states rights but states rights concerning slavery. Lincoln was not a radical republican but supported its "ultimate" destruction. Meaning he doesn't like slavery but that he wouldn't immediately abolish slavery. He only believed this to get the northern democrat vote, if he came out as a radical republican he would never had become president. Also, the basis of the civil war according to Lincoln was the state's ability to secede from the union was never stated in the constitution. Therefore the south never seceded and was described as "rebellious" states. That's why Lincoln fucking bothered with the Emancipation Proclomation, it was a formality that even Lincoln knew wouldn't do anything unless he won the war.
And for the fucking record, the rest of the country wouldn't fucking care about the south having slaves if they didn't try and shove their slavery down Calofornia, Utah, Missouri and Kansas's throat because even the South knew if there were more free soil states than slave states their economy would get fucked. In short the south was fucking wrong from the start
>>67280 They didn't care about racism that much, but they cared about the idea of equality as enshrined in American politispeak ever since 1776. Slavery had been the elephant in the room ever since the founding of the US until things came to a head before the Civil War erupted.
>>67230 >Also, the basis of the civil war according to Lincoln was the state's ability to secede from the union was never stated in the constitution.
Not...quite. There was some debate over the legality of secession at the time. Lincoln's camp basically said this:
1) The Constitution's preamble says "in order to form a MORE PERFECT union." The "more perfect" part is in reference to the Articles of Confederation. 2) The Articles of the Confederation specifically created a perpetual (permanent) Union between the states. 3) A perpetual union cannot be made "more perfect" by allowing itself to be dissolved. 4) Therefore, secession is implicitly forbidden by the Constitution by way of the Articles of Confederation. 5) Therefore secession is illegal.
It's...a bit shaky. Texas v. White later cleared everything up:
1) Unilateral secession is illegal 2) Unless you can win a war over it, then it's legal 3) Secession is otherwise legal if it is approved by Congress in a bill that has passed through Congress and is signed into law, just like any other bill.
>>64772 It wasn't about slavery; it was a fight to preserve the Union. You don't invade a sovereign country to stop them from owning slaves.
It really goes back to the creation of the Republican Party, which supplanted the Whig Party. Prior to 1954 there were divisions even at the state level. In the 1960 election, there were no Southern states that voted Republican, yet they still lost, enraging them. This was the true cause of the secession. The Southern Democratic Party felt undermined vis-a-vis the Republican Party.
The causes of division between the North and the South where multi-dimensional, as well, as they always are. The South was an agricultural economy; the North, industrial. This led to a conflict regarding tariff policy: the South wanted no tariffs, so they could export their cotton to Europe without it being counter-tariffed—which often happens as a response to a tariff. The North wanted tariffs, mostly to protect their nascent industry from foreign competition, which may have impeded it. This underpinned the North and South division just as much as slavery. So when you discuss the Wilmot Proviso and Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc., you have to keep in mind that slavery was, more or less, a moral weak-point in Southern culture that was exploited as such. The real debate was whether a new state would be Southern or Northern, as the increasing cultural and economic division left a de facto two countries ruled by one government.
Slavery was more or less a propaganda ploy to give the North a sense of moral superiority, and to simplify the conflict for the uneducated masses. It's really no different from saying the Russians are being aggressive, while ignoring your own exploits, not to mention general geopolitical analysis. It is never as simple as a moral statement. A good test I find, is to ask yourself: if this was written about an ancient empire, would this make sense? If not, you probably are reading something deceptive—or at least fragmentary.
>>67766 >Slavery was more or less a propaganda ploy to give the North a sense of moral superiority, and to simplify the conflict for the uneducated masses.
This is an absurdly simplified assumption. While I can appreciate your reasoning, slavery was never just a political exploit used by Northerners. It was exploited as much as Southerners liked equate factory workers in the North to their own slaves.
You're right, North and South were polar opposites in terms of economies which led to significant friction. However, slavery was literally the basis for why the South had remained a largely agrarian society alongside things such as the cotton gin.
You're also right in that the war was primarily to preserve the Union, but that just begs the question of why they had seceded in the first place which leads us back to the differing cultures with slavery as a prime reason for the differences.
I used to be like you, because it was almost impossible to think that the war could be so black and white, and you're right again - the war itself and the justifications were not so black and white. But in the case of the causes of the Civil War, from politics to the economy to the general public society, all roads came from slavery.
>>68027 >While I can appreciate your reasoning, slavery was never just a political exploit used by Northerners.
I should have been more clear here. Slavery was the battleground that their differences culminated to. The Fugitive Slave Act and the Preston Brooks vis-a-vis Charles Sumner incident, etc., are proof of this. They weren't really fighting over slavery, though, although it can seem that way. Slavery was just an issue that was overt. When Northerners pushed for the "end of slavery," it was really limited to newley acquired territory. They were trying to bolster their voting bloc and enforce their agendas on the South by making a power struggle out to be a moral struggle. Slavery was a euphemism in many ways for all of the cultural and economic differences between them, as that's always what was lying right under the surface anyhow.
>But in the case of the causes of the Civil War, from politics to the economy to the general public society, all roads came from slavery.
I completely disagree here. All roads led to slavery from economic and cultural issues, is more like it. If the North and South had no differences other than slavery, there would have been no war. Whether slavery was allowed in a new state was a matter of picking sides, not picking morals.
>>68417 OK, I understand you better, thanks. I agree, the war wasn't really about morals but control over the expansion into the West and which culture would dominate in the long-term. But this
>If the North and South had no differences other than slavery, there would have been no war
I don't know, man. Perhaps the North and South had inherent differences even during the colonial era, but at the very least slavery helped to cement those differences more than any other factor as long as it remained an institution. The South was being left behind technologically and and economically at an alarming rate all because they couldn't let go of slavery.
Never mind morals or the moral high ground, slavery was not just part of the Southern way of life; it was their livelihood. They were making bank off the backs of slaves to where they didn't need to consider industrializing as much as the North was doing. In the event of slavery being abolished, the Southern economy would've collapsed overnight and the South knew it.
And as long as slavery was a Southern institution, you would have Northern abolitionist agitators who could influence the public irregardless of what Northern politicians wanted in terms of realpolitik.
I might be rambling but I'm at work, sorry man. I do enjoy your point of view, though
>>68838 >And as long as slavery was a Southern institution, you would have Northern abolitionist agitators who could influence the public irregardless of what Northern politicians wanted in terms of realpolitik.
The abolitionists were only given primacy because of the feud with the South. People like John Brown would have still existed, but they wouldn't have been supported unless there were already tensions. They were supported soley to facilitate Northern expansion.
>>65869 Actually the war was started by the north the first shots at fort sumpter were union. Why don't you get off your high horse and admit it wasn't as simple as the south was wrong and the north was just.
>>70750 There is not a single source that says anything other than that the first shots of the war were fired by the South from the Citadel, at the steamer Star of the West. Which technically wasn't even a Federal ship, it had been hired to transport troops and supplies to Sumter.
After that Lincoln assembled a flotilla consisting of the USS Pawnee, the USS Powhatan, the USS Pocahontas, the USRC Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic, and three hired tug boats. The first to arrive was Harriet Lane on April 11, 1861. That same day the Confederate Brigadier General Beauregard sent aids to demand the surrender of the fort. One of those aides, Colonel James Chestnut Jr., was specifically sent in to decide whether or not the fort could be taken by force. After the aides left, Chestnut and the two other aides decided that yes, the fort could be taken by force, and Chestnut ordered the nearby Fort Johnson to open fire on Fort Sumter, which began at 4:30 AM on April 12th.
So, no. The South shot first, and then shot second, and no attempt was made by the Federal troops in Sumter to return fire for over two hours (7:00 AM) - Sumter was not equipped to attack back against a fort as they had no fuses for their explosive shells, and so could attack with only solid iron canon balls (which are not as good as you might think when attacking a fort).
So, no. The Confederates attacked first. Then they attacked second. Then the Federal troops waited more than two hours to attack back.
>>65634 The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.