|
| Thread: The American Civil War |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT» |
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
posted April 13, 2013 04:03 PM |
|
|
The American Civil War
I can't say I've read everything on the causes on the secession, but I think it had more to do with Lincoln's election and states' rights than slavery. Slavery surely was an issue but I've read that there weren't that many slave owners actually and Robert E Lee freed his slaves while about Lincoln I've read that he had owned slaves but this likely not true.
I think that even if the South managed to stop the Union from winning the war slavery would've been abolished later thanks to industrialization and eventually the CSA would join the USA again. I doubt there would be two separate countries today, they're esentially the same people, although the South has its own traits just like any region of a country has.
And I admire the Southern people for fighting for their rights and for Dixie.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 13, 2013 05:12 PM |
|
|
The war wasn't about slavery per-se. Just assuming since the north had slave states.
As I said before the south had the right of it, even if they wanted to secede because of slavery the north had no right to deny them, the entire war was just a repetition of the American war of independence, with the south's defeat it seems like little has changed.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted April 13, 2013 05:14 PM |
|
|
No but some are trying to establish that as fact, which is also wrong. On each side there were people who owned slaves and others who didn't.
Well the north considered illegal to secede, I think they should've left them alone.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted April 13, 2013 06:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
while Lincoln had slaves at the same time
Now where did you find this particular piece of information?
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted April 13, 2013 06:11 PM |
|
|
From a wrong source perphaps, now I see he didn't.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 13, 2013 06:43 PM |
|
|
Nobody wins in any war, let alone a civil one. Oh they might declare victory, and one side might surrender, but they haven't won. People died needlessly. You're correct that it was not about slavery though. That was just an excuse..people tend to find many excuses to harm/kill each other.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted April 13, 2013 06:49 PM |
|
|
Exactly. I don't war is ever right, much less a civil war. That's why I said the North should've left the South alone and that they likely wouldn't have stayed separate for too long.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted April 13, 2013 07:19 PM |
|
|
Stronlgy disagree with any sentiment that the south had the right of it. Lincon did the right thing in marshaling the north to kick the south's ass. The terrible tragedy of the war was Lincoln's assassination at the hands of a southern secession slave owning sympathizer pos John Wilkes Booth. What should have been a total victory instead morphed into the defeated south being allowed to terrorize black people over the course of the next century through legislation and acts of violence and torture.
____________
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted April 13, 2013 07:24 PM |
|
|
Okay, since this thread is about opinions I'll share my opinion with anybody who cares to read it. IMHO the aristocratic elite of the southern states were parasites who stole the labor of black people for 200 years. During the last half of that 200 years an abolitionist movement had been growing in the north who were trying to use the process of democracy to ban slavery. The only to do this was a constitutional amendment, which would require approval by 3/4 of the states. Or I should say "approved by white folk in 3/4 of the states", because black people couldn't vote.
What's important to remember though was that the northern states were growing in population at a much faster rate than the southern states. The southern leaders realized this and so responded by actively promoting slavery in states outside of their own, including as far away as California. A few of them also tried to persuade America to invade and annex Cuba and then divide it in two so that two more states could be tacked onto the slavery column. What gall!
And still the people came streaming into the northern states from a Europe that was bursting at the seams. The federal government promptly shipped them out west and gave them plots of land. And these immigrants, having seen Europe's oppressive class system firsthand, either formed into free states or were on the verge of doing so.
The southern leaders saw that they were on the losing side of history and so decided they only way they could preserve their feudal lifestyle was cutting themself off politically from the abolitionist forces. This became known as the secession.
The southern elite however faced a problem. While nearly all of the southern elite owned slaves the vast majority of southerners were poor whites who had no vested interest in perpetuating slavery. So the southern leaders created a raft of lies with which to persuade poor southern whites to lay down their lives such that they could continue their parasitic lifestyle. They said "If the northerners end slavery the black folk will get revenge and kill us all and rape our women!" And that scared the white folk good!
But then these evil people told another lie which became one of the most successful lies in human history. The lie that they told was that the poor folk needed to die for them because of "state's rights". And the poor white folk swallowed that lie hook, line, and sinker. The lie was so successful in fact that you can still hear it said to this day.
By 1870 black people were free and they could vote, whereas 10 years previous they could not vote and they were either slaves or were in constant danger of being re-enslaved. And that's all anybody needs to know about whether the war was justified or not.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted April 13, 2013 07:24 PM |
|
|
Racism and segregation are not in any way justified IMO but the South just wanted to be left alone. Booth supported slavery but Robert E Lee and many other Confederates didn't. Slavery was bound to be finished eventually.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 14, 2013 03:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Stronlgy disagree with any sentiment that the south had the right of it. Lincon did the right thing in marshaling the north to kick the south's ass. The terrible tragedy of the war was Lincoln's assassination at the hands of a southern secession slave owning sympathizer pos John Wilkes Booth. What should have been a total victory instead morphed into the defeated south being allowed to terrorize black people over the course of the next century through legislation and acts of violence and torture.
I don't see this as at all coherent. The assassination of Lincoln is what motivated the south to being allowed to terrorize black people over the next century? How do these two points even follow each other?
Abolitionism was gaining momentum in the southern states, just as it was gaining momentum in all of the plantation countries in the Americas, at least right up until the point where the American Union did a reversed evolution and became just another predictable imperialist European nation and decided to invade the south. The south wasn't far off from experiencing the privilege of correcting a great evil, just as the northern states had done, and that opportunity was ripped away from them. It was precisely because the Civil War occurred that the broad ideologies of Southern pride were able to flourish in the war ravaged south, including heightened discrimination towards blacks. Do you really think there would have been as much bitterness and prejudice if the south hadn't been invaded and laid to waste? Of course not. Sure, prejudice towards blacks wouldn't have simply vanished over night (after all, prejudice was very much alive and well in the north). It still would have been a struggle that would need to be won gradually, but it seems to me all-but irrefutable that the Civil War elongated that struggle by destroying and embittering the entire southern half of the country.
It's pretty hilarious/disappointing how the northern states garnished a sense of moral superiority because they had already outlawed slavery. Strictly speaking I suppose this is true, but you're essentially gloating from a position of circumstantial convenience. It's easy to outlaw something when you have almost no skin in the game. Where were the plantations in the northern US and Europe? There weren't hardly any. Cotton grew in the southern climate, and it was in Latin America and the US south where millions of blacks had been sold to establish a plantation economy to feed the demand of consumers and factories in the northern US and Great Britain. Obviously it was going to be far more of both a political and cultural challenge to outlaw slavery in these states since it was in the south where slavery had been so heavily integrated. Do you think that if cotton grew well in a northern climate and that if the north had a huge part of its culture and economy built around the plantation, that they would have so quickly outlawed slavery? Course not, that's pretty much common sense. The less convenient something is, the more difficult it is to tackle the issue. Instead of acting like halfwit moral egotists, the north should have continued helping the southern states to gradually win themselves out of slavery through continued political activism, which is what it was doing, and it was working. It worked in all of the Americas right up until Brazil was the last country to outlaw slavery in 1888. They were beautiful victories for mankind and we'll never know when this would have happened in the US American south because the north opted to be impatient aggressive warlords, but it's a pretty safe bet that it would have happened earlier than 1888. US history doesn't have that treasure. Every other American country does, but in US history, the full outlawing of slavery comes at the end of a massive, brutal war. Yeah. Well done.
The Civil War severely damaged the US economy in the 19th century, heightened discrimination towards blacks, and killed over half a million people. The entire country was less great because it happened. The Yankee crusaders and their army that was bolstered by immigrant cannon fodder did far more harm than they did good.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 14, 2013 04:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Cotton grew in the southern climate, and it was in the south where millions of blacks had been sent to establish a plantation economy to feed the demand of factories in the northern US and Great Britain.
Industrial North had the luxury of abolishing slavery yet the plantation based economy of the South demanded a more gradual change.
I have no objection to this, agreed. What I want to ask is though, if North's industry was dependent on the production in the South, why did they RUSH them into abolishing slavery?
I mean the whole thing can be examined within a Marxist approach, that is "the relations of production determine superstructure" which includes moral values like objecting to slavery and so on... But since North's industry depended on South's production, what was their catch?
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 14, 2013 04:28 AM |
|
|
Yes this is true, but I'm sure you can imagine how it was less directly involved in people's daily lives, which makes it so more palatable to both outlaw it and condemn it, even if indirectly it will have an impact on you. AFAIK there were certain boycotts that took place right up until the civil war, but northerners and Europeans were still more than happy to buy the cotton that fed the textile factories (Queen Victoria and several northern US business giants discretely condoned/supported the continuation of the Confederacy)
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted April 14, 2013 08:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The Civil War severely damaged the US economy in the 19th century, heightened discrimination towards blacks, and killed over half a million people. The entire country was less great because it happened. The Yankee crusaders and their army that was bolstered by immigrant cannon fodder did far more harm than they did good.
I agree. It had been better if there was no Civil War, no matter what the excuses were for the North to try and take back the southern states.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted April 16, 2013 11:47 AM |
|
|
A person on another forum asked me why Lincoln tried to deport freed slaves to Africa and Mexico and why the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in Northern territories. I wasn't even aware of these things.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted April 16, 2013 01:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A person on another forum asked me why Lincoln tried to deport freed slaves to Africa and Mexico and why the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave in Northern territories. I wasn't even aware of these things.
I'm pretty sure neither of those are true. At least, I know the second one isn't, no idea about the first, but seems far-fetched as well.
____________
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted April 16, 2013 02:39 PM |
|
|
I did a bit of research
First
Second
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted April 16, 2013 06:38 PM |
|
|
To share my take about the Un-Civil War, I have to start at the beginning; the main-cause of hundreds of thousands dying in the 1860s is found in at least two of our most famous founding fathers.
From the very start of America, most powerful white men in this country were schizophrenic about the meaning of freedom; the reason for this duality had everything to do with "money & power" derived from the Anglo-American social-ladder. This is important because British society was extended to the American-colonies.
The United-States "accepted" the slave-based economics of England. W. Wilberforce’s stands against slavery; 1st against British-cargo till-1807 and finally Slavery in 1833. is very revealing about the decades long battle against ye-old-tainted-freedom on both shores.
Back to the America's leaders; nearly every one of them knew that their bibles did not endorse owning slaves just because it tells slaves how to cope and survive under slavery's-yoke. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are perfect historical examples of a horrible duality; both fought to establish "freedom and equality for all" but neither lived this maxim of their new country and only released their own slaves...when reaching their death-beds.
The reason why our first government did NOT create the truly free country they envisioned had everything to do with economics. Never was the missing freedom totally about white-power but it was absolutely and undeniably centered on the source of..."money & power.” Jefferson and Washington both were having financial difficulties and since the source of their wealth was chiefly due to profits derived from slavery, <imo>they were trapped by their "holdings". For them to do what was "right", to live what they preached, meant they would first have to accept financial-ruin and the likely loss of power in politics; neither would take that drastic step.
Eighty-some years later this was still the main issue and an important reason why two-faced-freedom was still alive in 1861. The South may have yelled States-Rights and there were plenty of racists but a deeper look at the economics of the time is the cold reality of greed. The power-brokers of Dixie were in the same boat as George and Tom and they were not about to suffer financial collapse for the sake of "any" others and even much less so, "black-others" that they not only looked down upon but absolutely needed to maintain their regal status. Sherman's-March may have burned a few plantations but the defeat of the South's slaved-based economy obliterated all the rest.
The truth is, even Old Abe was a divided man at the start of the war; his main concern being "the Union". To his credit, he did finally see the light in 1863 and as one black historian has said; "When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he elevated the war to a higher purpose". I agree and think there were a couple of higher purposes and one of them was to finally get the meaning of freedom...freed from greed and into all flesh and blood.
Btw, an interesting paradox; while the North was modernizing with machinery, the South, at the same time; starts using a machine called the Cotton-gin and makes slavery even more profitable.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted April 16, 2013 06:53 PM |
|
|
I hate it how the South are perceived as the villains just because they endorsed slavery (as did some Union states as well) and the Union and Linclon as the big heroes. But then again history is written by the winners.
I have much more respect for a man like Robert Edward Lee than Abraham Lincoln. Any other president could've issued that proclamation, but could any other army man do what Lee did?
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted April 17, 2013 11:36 AM |
|
|
"More than any other part of America, the South stands apart. Thousands of Northerners and foreigners have migrated to it...but Southerners they will not become. For this is still a place where you must have either been born or have 'people' there, to feel it is your native ground. "Natives will tell you this. They are proud to be Americans, but they are also proud to be Virginians, South Carolinians, Tennesseeans, Mississippians and Texans. But they are conscious of another loyalty too, one that transcends the usual ties of national patriotism and state pride. It is a loyalty to a place where habits are strong and memories are long. If those memories could speak, they would tell stories of a region powerfully shaped by its history and determined to pass it on to future generations."
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
|
|
