So if the Union really wanted to end slavery why didn't they pay the Southern aristocrats to release their slaves? That alternative would have been way cheaper than the cost of the civil war.
Slavery was only a part of the issue. If it was slavery alone that they wanted to get rid of, then things might well have ended peacefully.
History is written by the victors- Niccolo Machiavelli.
And this is not always true. History is written by those who can write it. If there's a war between two nations, and a 3rd one is standing on the sideline, taking notes on what's going on, they will write their own version of history, filtered through their values.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree there was other factors. I'm not sure where you're from, but you'd be surprised how many people in the states think the Civil War was just about slavery. That's pretty much all they taught us about it in my old crappy public school.
Do you know any books or documentaries about the civil war not made by Americans that I could look at? I'm curious to see an outside perspective.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most historical education in school tends to just be boiled down to its simplest parts. Part of it is due to just how much there's to go through, they can never really go in-depth with anything, but a lot of the simplification can end up making things very misleading.
Sadly, I can't recommend any sources to you that are not in Swedish.
Slavery was not an inconsequential part of why the civil war started, and it might well have been the attempts to ban slavery that ignited the flame (it in fact most likely was), but there were other factors, some more and some less based around slavery.
Leading up to the Civil War, there has been a growing schism in the US, between north & south. The south had a mostly agrarian economy, and land owners often thought of themselves as the "rulers of their own land". In the north, there was a more general acceptance of the government, and it's rule, so when the north starts demanding that the southern land owners stop using slaves, that was viewed as infringing on their freedom (something you can still see today in the US, in the south they tend to be more critical of the government growing in size than in the north), and they thought that Lincoln tried to impose his values on them.
Economically, the north & south were very different, and slaves do factor in here. The plantations in the south required a lot of workers, and in order for them to keep being strong economically, they needed slaves, while the north was more industrialized, and this was less worker-intense. Outlawing slavery would make the south even weaker compared to the north.
One final thing to consider is religion. While Christianity was the main religion in the US, the view on Christianity and Christian values were different. Even within the same religious sect there could be huge differences in values between the north & south.
The problem is trying to figure out to what extent the different factors actually played it. Years upon years of bad history writing has made it really hard to tell. Was it social issues? Economic? Was slavery as central to the conflict as it seem, or was it just used as a symbol of the government trying to impose its will over individual states, or even individual people?
Speaking of the government buying out slaves. It's questionable if they would really have been able to afford it. At the start of the civil war, somewhere between 40 & 50 % of the population in the south were slaves.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would disagree that it had as much to do with slavery as you are giving it credit for. You do realize the emancipation proclamation only applied to the southern states, and not the north? Slavery wasnt as large a thing in the north, because of public view, but it remained legal until well after the conclusion of the civil war in the north.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, the emancipation proclamation stated that it was just "rebelling states", and I'm not going to say that there was not a degree of hypocrisy to this, as 3 (or was it 4) union states still allowed slavery. Saying that it was legal in the north is misleading though, as most northern states had outlawed slavery prior to the war (going of memory here, but that would be 19 or 20 states).
Comment has been collapsed.
that's because slavery had been illegal in the northern states since no later than 1820
Comment has been collapsed.
But not in the middle states that sided with the Union. So there was still slavery going on in the Union at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Comment has been collapsed.
The emancipation proclamation is actually pretty funny when you think about it. Lincoln proclaims the slaves to be free... in another country that he actually had no power over... Why do people think he freed the slaves again?
Comment has been collapsed.
except it wasn't another country. It was part of the U.S. (or at least it was disputed as such - hence the whole civil war thing)
Comment has been collapsed.
Since the south believed it was legal for them to secede from the Union, they formed their own government and, to them, another "country" that they could make the rules for. Whether or not they had the right to secede is another issue, but the fact of the matter is, even if it was a part of the United States, Lincoln literally had no control over what happened in the the rebelling states at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation (Due to an inability to enforce the laws in those areas). Bringing his overall slave-freeing (for lack of a better term) count to a whopping 0 slaves.
In the eyes of the south, they were a separate country and they came very close to getting a foreign country to officially recognize them as a separate nation. So on a technical level, they weren't actually a country (Since they never were officially recognized). But they certainly had the separate government and military to act as a separate country and enforce their laws over a large domain. This is what I was talking about in my previous comment.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is open to debate whether states had the right to secede, and both sides can be argued reasonably. From the South's point of view, they had the right to secede and were a separate country. From the North's point of view, they did not have the right to secede and were not a separate country.
When Lincoln announced the emancipation proclamation it was over the entire united states, which he believed to include the southern states. (the southern states would argue that they were no longer a part of the united states)
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice reply ,but I think the Union could have afforded to buy the slaves freedom. They were able to afford the civil war weren't they? To this day that war killed more Americans than ALL of our wars combined. We also started to enter the industrial revolution shortly after the war ended.
Comment has been collapsed.
Questionable if they could afford it, and even if they could, would they have wanted to?. And the northern states were not the ones who initiated the war.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree. War is a expensive business, and it costed a lot more than just money. The civil war was terrible for both sides. Did you know that a doctor invented the Gatling gun because he was horrified by the injuries that the soldiers were receiving?
Comment has been collapsed.
It is expensive, but if you don't think there's going to be a war if you don't buy out the salves, then why put yourself in heavy debt? The first battle of the civil war was the Battle of Fort Sumter, where a Confederacy force consisting of thousands of soldiers attacked a union fort that had less than 100 active soldiers.
At the onset of the war, the Union was not really ready for it, they had not prepared for a civil war, while the Confederacy had, to some extent.
Comment has been collapsed.
The north most certainly could not have afforded it, that was a major point of the war, is they had a shit ton of debt from the revolutionary war, and they were using the south to pay it off. The south understandably was not ok with being used as a petty cash fund.
Comment has been collapsed.
As Fnord said, the history we are taught in the public schools is watered down, carefully selected, white-washed, and otherwise crafted to conform to what the 0local and/or federal) government wants us to think. It isn't until a person starts delving into books that are not readily available to the public that he or she begins to understand how little he or she knows about "History." In many instances, what we read in our textbooks are downright lies.
Comment has been collapsed.
There were other factors that led to the civil war.
EDIT: Ninja'd. I guess I'm pining for the Fnords.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lincoln was nationalist scum and the biggest usurper of the constitution to ever hold the office of president. He also was on record saying if he couldve kept slavery AND kept the country whole, he would have. Lincoln was no hero, not to the country or to slavery.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not that I am pro slavery or anything like that, but the confederate soldiers were the last men in uniform to defend US freedom. They were fighting for states rights against a federal government that had no authority. Prior to the civil war we were the "states of america" not the united....Another fallacy to the war over slavery argument, is only wealthy landowners could afford slaves. The majority of those men fighting for the south, had never, and could never afford to own slaves. It was about staying independent from the northern states, and not carrying the burden of paying off a war debt (revolutionary war) for a war they werent even around for.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, today I learnt that someone living in Massachusetts can write such a thing, and that apparently that state isn't as totally left-wing as I thought. (Well, left-wing in the sense you Americans think about it. In reality it's more like central/right.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I hate this state, lol, I consider myself a constitutionalist, but I vote libertarian usually. I own guns, shoot off fireworks, basically I'm a redneck stuck in a blue state.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, that was rather obvious. If you hadn't have written state on Steam, my question would have been: "You from South Carolina, Virginia, or Alabama?" :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Ideally I'd move back to new hampshire, but property taxes are too damn high there. But some interesting things are happening with the free state project that have potential. Especially with the way their state constitution is written, NH may soon become the first 'Libertarian' state in the union, the numbers rise every day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Small-government movement? Seems a strange idea from here. Especially living in a country where the state has nationalised now all utilities, education, some companies, the majority of the financial sector, and a few dozen other things. (A supposedly right-winger government doing the largest communist plan to date. :))
Comment has been collapsed.
If they nationalize food, move. Seriously. Thats where it always causes catastrophic failure. Look at Venezuela for a current example.
Comment has been collapsed.
As long as we are in the EU, they cannot do that.
As for Venezuela, thankfully our leaders slightly, VERY slightly less of a colossal idiots. Here, the local "bus driver" (who in our case is a plumber) is kept in the mayoral seat and at the head of the state-contract construction businesses, but nowhere near the politicla power outside his small county.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've also spent the last 10+ years of my life studying the constitution, the articles of confederation, the laws pertaining to them, and the challenges made against them. As almost everything Lincoln did in regards to the civil war was unconstitutional, it has fallen into the scope of my studies. My personal favorite is the '4 score and 7 years ago, our fathers brought forth a new nation' FALSE they brought forth sovereign nation states. We were never supposed to have a federal government like we do now. We were never supposed to have a standing army, just a navy. Ugh, I could ramble all day on this. I hate my government, and what its become.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm in Washington (the state) but my family came from Missouri. My family fought for the South but they didn't own slaves. The feds were trying to force them off their farmland so they joined up with the South.
I'm not a conservative or a republican but I do have alt right views. I'm a Libertarian.
Comment has been collapsed.
partly true. The intention was to have a federal government, because the founding fathers realized it was necessary - the continental congress wasn't working out, they realized they needed a somewhat strong central government.
However, there was, right from the start, the issue of how much power the federal government should have. Basically, they reached an agreement as to what powers the central government should have, which can quickly be summarized as (1) anything having to do with foreign (countries, persons, etc.), and (2) resolving differences between the states. (add to that the post-office, which today would include all telecom, and promoting arts & sciences). We can skip straight to the end and agree that it was never supposed to have as much power as it does now.
Comment has been collapsed.
if anyone is willing to give me free room to live in and food every day, i will whole heartedly and agreeably be your slave lol. cant say no to free food and board.
Comment has been collapsed.
Indentured servitude is still semi legal, I got ramen noodles and a closet if you are interested.
Comment has been collapsed.
i would be ok in a closet, if harry potter did it, so can i.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you agree to that, is it really slavery then? You could say the the food and the place you live in is your payment if you agreed to it...
Comment has been collapsed.
Labor laws dont allow that. Room and board can be deducted from your pay. But it must be pay. Government cant tax your food and shelter, and if they cant tax it, it must be illegal.
Comment has been collapsed.
actually, they can tax food and shelter - they assign a monetary value for it and count it as income
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you could make a contract where you put a value down and then say that that's the exact value of the food and shelter. Then you just pay the tax over that and it's legal...
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm simply skeptical of the narrative of our government has told us. I don't think Abe Lincoln is the hero we were told.
For all the problems and manipulations of our government, this isn't fundamentally one of them. It's due in part to poor past standards on writing history books, and scholastic book companies basing their books on previous books, rather than doing the research themselves.Ie, incorrect information propagates itself without limit.
In short, the problems are:
- No standards of note in place to make sure school books are factual
- Capitalism
- The u.s. putting extremely low emphasis on education, and having continually declining public education ranking among developed nations [even with our better quality private schools factored in we rank in the 20s].
- Your local schooling was clearly.. oversimplified, if it's as you presented it. No worries, mine was similar [Texas' public school system is infamous], but it was easy even before the internet to get more factual information, just by visiting the local library.
- Poor education extends itself to those both in and out of power, all of whom regurgitate false information without thought. That makes it pervasive, and hard to correct perspectives on.
Clearly, this isn't an issue of deliberate censorship or misrepresentation by the government, though you CAN argue they're nevertheless at fault [for not providing adequate budgeting, oversight, or valuation of the matter].
At the moment, the internet is readily available to you. If you're interested, the correct information is freely out there.
Comment has been collapsed.
At the moment, the internet is readily available to you. If you're interested, the correct information is freely out there.
So much this, I am amazed how ignorant (not directed at op just a generalization) the average person is in todays society, both on hot topic issues, and the world in general. We live in an age, where you literally have almost every bit of human knowledge available to you at all times. There is no excuse for ignorance anymore. None. Dont understand something, look it up. Dont know who's telling the truth on a matter, research it yourself. Want to specialize in quantum theory and mechanics but dont want to go to college? Study at your own pace online, everything is there.
I honestly believe I could go toe to toe with any constitutional law scholar in a debate or hearing. And my education on the matter is all self taught.
Comment has been collapsed.
Want to specialize in quantum theory and mechanics but dont want to go to college? Study at your own pace online, everything is there.
As someone with an engineering degree (Chemical engineering), I'm not really sure how viable this is in reality. How do you know what information you need to seek out? How can you tell good information from bad information? How can you know that you've understood things correctly? How do you know that you're not filtering out information that you don't "want" to see, that does not work with your view of how things should work?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, that probably wasnt the best example, as some subjects just reading is clearly not enough. I guess my point was though, that we live in an information age, there is no excuse for ignorance. But there are plenty of colleges that offer free courses online that are more structured and have example tests etc. Like http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/
Comment has been collapsed.
Well yes, you can find a lot of information online very easily, but you're always running into the issue with your own filters getting in the way. It's very easy to discard information that does not fit in with your own world view without even thinking about it, be it in history, politics, economics or natural science. We all do this to some extent, but once you're invested in an idea, it gets very hard to break out of it on your own.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure your point, unless you think I meant that slavery had nothing to do with it at all. Which I did not, but less than 10% of southern landowners owned slaves. To say the entire war was over slavery is silly. The federal government, had no authority to ban slavery. As eventually was done, a constitutional ammendment needed to be ratified by the states. It was a states rights issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you got your reply in before my edit, the point was, slavery wrong yes, not denying it, it was a reason for secession yes. But the greater point was the federal government did not have the authority to tell the states they couldnt own slaves. Moral issues aside, the larger issue to most southerners, was the over reach of said federal government and states rights which is what this...
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union
...is referring too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, but then you are saying, they should have allowed the fed to overstep their authority, and force their will on the southern states, because morally it was the correct thing to do. And as a human, I agree somewhat. As a constitutionalist however, I cannot justify it for any reason. Much like the cries of 'its for your safety' or 'think of the children' that we hear from politicians today, it preys on morality and public opinion instead of being lawful. Of course, legality doesnt = right either. My contention is that Lincoln and his desire for a unified nation, arguably started the decline of this nation into the totalitarian system we are rapidly becoming.
Comment has been collapsed.
Im not sure I'd agree with you, as the Fugitive Slave Act was a part of the greater Compromise of 1850, which went through congress.... legally. All states were represented, and voted it into law. This was not the case with abolition.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its interesting to note however, that without the greater compromise of 1850, the north would have likely lost the war. In the ~10 years between it and the civil war, the north industrialized in a major way. Railroad infrastructure expanded immensely etc, allowing the north a greater supply line when the war broke out. So in a manner of speaking, the south by pushing for the fugitive slave act as part of the compromise, actually defeated themselves before the war began.
Comment has been collapsed.
The 13th was ratified AFTER the civil war. on Dec 6 1865, The civil war ended on May 9 1865. I should have chosen a better closing statement in the prior comment, I just meant the attempt to abolish slavery prior to the amendment.
Comment has been collapsed.
Youve in essence cited the fact that there was an abolitionist movement by your earlier quote of states declarations of secession. However, even before the constitution was drafted there were abolitionists. And during the 1800's some of the more famous, were Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson (though one could argue it was for show since he owned many slaves) but he did sign the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves in 1807 during his tenure as president, Much closer to the civil war, and arguably a larger 'threat' to slavery was the ACS (American Colonization Society) although they wanted to send the slaves back to africa over just freeing them, but they had support from Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, James Monroe, and many many other prominent politicians.
The unconstitutional part came from the refusal to allow the states to secede. At the time, slavery was legal, due to the societal and political climate of the time, they knew the writing was on the wall. Adding to that prior to northern industrialization, the south was bearing the brunt of the war debt from the revolution, and they felt they were getting a very bad deal. Not only did the fed expect them to carry the burden of a war debt they did not take part in, they now wanted to take their percieved ability to have an economy capable of doing so. So they wanted to leave, as should have been their right. All states that joined the union after the first 13 did so with all rights and privileges of the founding colonies. Since many of those colonies reserved the right to leave the union if they so chose, that right would thereby be passed to all states who joined after the fact. Now this of course is a point of contention, and Texas v White has actually rules unilateral secession is unconstitutional, though I would disagree, but whatever. Regardless of why they wanted to secede, they should have been allowed. Lincoln in his refusal, forced their hand.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didnt intend on coming off as arrogant or as a casual dismissal, I just dont have it in me for yet another long debate as to why I disagree and believe they ruled in error(I should be asleep, I have to be up in 1h10m for work). Its not like it was a unanimous decision either, it was 5 in support and 3 dissenting, not even a landslide.
As to relevance, I just figured someone would eventually chime in, that states cant just secede, and cite the case.
Comment has been collapsed.
"...the greater point was the federal government did not have the authority to tell the states they couldn't own slaves."
But God did have the authority, so the result was correct.
Comment has been collapsed.
Im sorry, Im not getting into any kind of religious debate on the matter.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really a religious issue, because "God" represents that which is outside the bounds of man made law.
"God" is the ultimate defender of freedom and liberty, because it doesn't give a damn about what you want, but only what is right.
Comment has been collapsed.
I want to be clear I wasn't claiming the war had nothing to do with slavery. However as a I said earlier, many in the states do think believe the war was purely about Slavery nothing more.
Comment has been collapsed.
"The federal government, had no authority to ban slavery."
Slaves have the right to kill their masters, so are you saying that only the slaves themselves could rise up against tyranny, without help?
Comment has been collapsed.
No no no, Im saying that the way the constitution was written, and the amendments in place at the time, meant that states could ban slavery. But the federal government could not. Thats all, nothing more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I look at it as being similar to a foreign human rights intervention. The slaves comprised a nation unto themselves, and the federal government provided them assistance to overthrow their oppressors. If they violated the constitution to do that, then good.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont agree completely, but I agree with your sentiment. I would die before being a slave, I would kill to keep from being a slave. Part of why I defend the constitution the way that I do, is because at its core, its not a living document like some claim. Its not open for reinterpretation, its sole purpose is to define your rights, not grant them, and act as a promisary note that the government will protect those rights for you. It IS a living document as the framers knew that things would change, so they gave us the ability to add and remove from it.
I cant however justify the government violating that constitution for any reason. Because once you allow it, as we are seeing so evidently now, for however good a reason, you set precedent for continued violations. If they felt as strongly as they did about it, the proper and legal thing for them to do, would have been to allow those states to secede. Pass the 13th, declare war, invade, and then claim the land as US soil.
Comment has been collapsed.
That isnt to say, the constitution is perfect, it clearly can never be, because people are imperfect. At the time, it expressly allowed slavery, and did not consider them men, but property, which excluded them from those same rights it guarantees to protect, the same as at its writing it excluded women. Hell even today it allows slavery, via the fourteenth amendment. The due process of law clause, basically allows you to become property of the state, taking away all of your rights.
Comment has been collapsed.
except, the federal government didn't ban slavery. At least, not until several years into the civil war.
States seceded because Abraham Lincoln got elected on a platform of prohibiting slavery in the territories (i.e. those lands in the west that had been newly acquired from the native americans, which were not states - but may become states in the future)
Comment has been collapsed.
At the moment, the internet is readily available to you. If you're interested, the correct information is freely out there.
Just relying on the internet is dangerous though. Whenever you search for information, you put everything through your own filter, you pick the information that looks good to you (and often the one that works well with your own world view), and skip other information.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not familiar with that approach, but it seems like it'd extend to any medium you access.
I was of course indicating you ought check multiple, respectable sources. Many major universities offer free online materials, and many scientific journals are accessible online. Many historical foundations have websites, and- with their passion for their topic- can provide excellent starting points for knowing what kind of framework you're needing to get more detail on [as can Wikipedia, and it often provides source links that you can verify the validity of].
If you're going to pick and choose information based on what sounds good to you, rather than what multiple respectable [preferably peer-reviewed] sources and logical analysis indicate as likely, then no amount of access to information is going to help you.
In any case, you'll at least manage to get a clearer, broader picture of things; so even if your end perspective is still flawed, you'll be able to improve it more readily as you come across new information.
Comment has been collapsed.
The internet also makes a great place to look up books in your local library, and cross-check them to see how well-considered they are. University libraries are typically notably better in their selection, and in my experience they'll let you sit and study (but not check books out) even if you aren't a student. Archival libraries are of course also fantastic for research, but certainly a fair bit more involving to go through.
There's plenty of options, and the internet tends to help make all of them more accessible or efficient to use. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, you can minimize selection bias by going to reputable sources, and not cherrypick them (it's still hard to not cherrypick information to some degree, even if you're using good sources). When going to a library, it's actually easier to cherrypick, as you tend to pick the books that have titles & descriptions that work well with what you're looking for/want to look for. On the other hand, the information in those sources tends to be at least mostly trustworthy.
Wikipedia tends to be an excellent source though, when you want an overview of a topic. A lot of people give it flack due to how anyone can edit it, but on the upside, anyone can edit it, meaning that more views gets represented and obviously biased information gets edited out. You still need to be careful, obviously, but as long as sources are listed, and you're not dealing with a really controversial topic (like Trump), the information on Wikipedia tends to be trustworthy
Comment has been collapsed.
The same could be said about learning from lectures and textbooks, you certainly have to go along with the accepted truth to graduate in a structured enviroment like a university. But cognitive dissonance is not limited to those who are self taught.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it very much does happen at a university level. Anything written or said has been selected by someone, you're never going to get around that. But at a university level, you're at least exposed to information written by someone with a broader view than yourself, which is likely to at least give you some better information. You're also likely to have to study the primary sources and at least here, a lot of the literature is foreign, meaning that you get information that's don't have exactly the same bias as what you're used to.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've already read and watched a lot of stuff on the civil war since I was little kid. There is always more to learn though and I wanted to have a dialogue here on steam gifts to see what others think about the war. I'm really happy with the discussion so far. Thanks everyone for being mature and reasonable. So many people will just call you a racist if you dare question the Union.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the best way to research the civil war (though its just as biased in some regards as the accepted version) is by researching not the civil war, but the war of northern aggression. Plenty of texts survived even though they arent accepted as historically accurate, yaknow, because they lost. But when presented with such a different stance on the war, the causes of said war, and the outcomes of it, you have such a wealth of new information to fact check, cross reference and compare to your established beliefs. That you cant help but question the narrative we were force fed in civics class.
Comment has been collapsed.
I suggest you start by reading Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America (published 1835) which has several chapters dedicated to the issues that he predicted would lead up to a civil war.
Comment has been collapsed.
The civil war is actually a very common passion of u.s. history researchers, from what I've seen. I've personally encountered several professors that specialize in that time period [including one that loved alt-fiction (alternate reality fiction, or 'what if this had happened instead'), which was rather a bit of fun for conversation].
If you'd like more involved discourse than the internet, it's worth noting that:
- Many lectures and seminars are available. Try making contact with local universities for information on times and locations.
- Many universities let you sit in on courses for free. You can find a professor amiable to that.
- There are professors out there that love to sit and chat about their field of study. Again, try making contact with the history department at your local universities.
- Civil War historical reenactment committees often strive for factual representation. They may not be able to provide you with as much [or as reliable] insight as a researcher or professor of the field of study, but they can provide a good perspective for adjusting your basic conception of things.
Comment has been collapsed.
In a touch of irony, I posted this on my facebook just yesterday....
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I didn't really read all the other posts, but my first reaction to your post was:
Paying them wouldn't have been enough? The South made money off of agriculture that was worked on by slaves. I wonder how much you'd actually have to pay them for them to let go of their slaves - they were probably making more profit than the US government could have offered them. (Although I have no clue how much the British government paid their slaveowners)
Comment has been collapsed.
slavery was also ingrained in their society; it wasn't just about the money, it was about their entire way of life
Comment has been collapsed.
As the large number of replies would seem to indicate, the American Civil War was only tangentially about slavery. Mostly, it was about the degree to which the federal government controlled the governance of the states. (States rights versus federal control.) This contentious issue remains to this very day.
As for the immorality of slavery, it could surely be argued that the slavery practiced by the South at that time was immoral. Keep in mind, however, that slavery existed for many thousands of years before that, sometimes in abusive form, but many times not. The more oppressive forms of slavery all had certain things in common:
- A slave had no rights.
- A slave had no hope of freedom.
- A slave was considered lower than an animal.
- It was possible to be born into slavery.
- In some cases, an entire group (ethnic or otherwise) was enslaved.
The inhumanity of such conditions is both apparent and abhorrent to anyone with a sense of decency. Yet while such practices were acceptable in some instances, for the most part, they were not. A study of slavery throughout human history indicates that in most instances, slavery amounted to "indentured servitude." Under such conditions, slaves were considered the property of their master, but they were still considered human and therefore deserving of humane treatment. There are many examples throughout history of famous leaders, teachers, and important political figures who were formerly slaves.
Comment has been collapsed.
"A study of slavery throughout human history indicates that in most instances, slavery amounted to "indentured servitude." Under such conditions, slaves were considered the property of their master, but they were still considered human and therefore deserving of humane treatment."
And THAT is the fundamental difference between CHATTEL slavery, which Africans were subjected to, and the ancient forms of slavery which apologists try to use as an excuse to say, "Well, other people did it, too."
Nothing in the history of the entire world had ever occurred such that not only were Africans enslaved, but they were completely and utterly DEHUMANIZED and NEGATED, their cultures and identities often destroyed, as they were considered literal property like a chair or a car or a cow, and then pseudo-scientific theories were promoted to justify and support that.
In particular, the fact that with the Atlantic Slave Trade, slavery became something that was INFINITE and in PERPETUITY, from birth to death, you, your children, and your children's children, and so on, until the END OF TIME, were considered enslaved BY LAW, made it an unprecedented undertaking and a dystopian nightmare the likes of which no science fiction story could ever compete with.
Comment has been collapsed.
...made it an unprecedented undertaking and a dystopian nightmare the likes of which no science fiction story could ever compete with.
Well-said.
Comment has been collapsed.
actually, it's other way around. It was about slavery, because slavery was all-encompasing in the south
the southern economy and social hierarchy was based on slavery, where slaves provided the labor and services that allowed gentry to live a comfortable life. Religion fragmented around the issue of slavery, with the church providing a religious basis for it in the south, and against in the north.
The northern states' economies were based around industry and machinery, slavery wasn't particularly practical. slavery was the hot-button issue in the years running up to the civil war. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had established that slavery would be legal south of the 36°30′ parallel, and illegal north thereof. However, the westward expansion of the US brought renewed issues here.
Abraham Lincoln ran for president on a platform of prohibiting slavery in the territories (not the states). Southern states started to secede as soon as he was elected. The only state right under contention was whether or not states had the right to secede
Comment has been collapsed.
I won't get into a big debate on slavery, but the bottom line remains that it wouldn't have made sense for the North to pay the South to free their slaves. The war wasn't only about slavery.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think a lot of it had to do with state rights. The United States of America wasn't as united back then as it is now. Slavery would have been a big issue, but the long-term impact of allowing the central government to make a ruling that many states vehemently objected to would have been a bigger point for many of the southern states than just paying off the cost of slaves (and future cost of labor).
Comment has been collapsed.
the entire social structure and economy of the southern states were built around the institution of slavery. It wasn't just about the cost of the slaves.
States started seceding after the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, specifically because his platform called for banning slavery in the territories of the US (note: not in states). Slavery was the hot-button issue for pretty much the entire 1850s, but the conflict had been escalating for quite a while. Alexis de Toqueville describes the issues with slavery and predicted how it would lead to a civil war in his 1835 book Democracy in America.
It's worth noting that while it was mostly about slavery, there were more factors at play. Economics and modernization (the south relied on slavery, the north on industry) including protectionism/tariffs, religion (denominational splits between those for and against slavery) and sections/factions. States Rights was only an issue insofar as whether or not a state had the right to secede.
Comment has been collapsed.
Slavery was also a big thing in India too It wasn't just about the business for them either. Slavery was very much socially acceptable and a part of their culture. Great Britain was able to get the Indians to end slavery without an uprising.
Comment has been collapsed.
some notable differences:
1) Britain controlled India in a way that's quite different from the U.S. Whatever Britain said, India had to do.
2) slavery didn't end, it just changed form. Slavery by contract became commonplace, and it's estimated that there are still 18 million people living in slavery there today.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it did have to do with states rights...the states right to enslave human beings. If the white people living in the South who didn't own slaves had done the right thing and killed all the slave owners, we could talk about this in a much different way. As it was, they were all implicated in the evil and therefore, they also had to suffer for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is the old and tried justification for attacking (killing) civilians during a war...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, except the difference here is that you had a specific constituency, the enslaved, who had an unalienable right to throw of their oppression by any means necessary, so maybe if they had done the killing and fighting all themselves, it would have not been as problematic as the fed helping them get free. But make no mistake, when you have a system of such evil, folks are going to have to die in order for others to be free.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pressed for time and will give a long answer later.
It was mostly about slavery, but not just about slavery. The economics of the south, and their way of life, was based on slavery. The north was based on industry. Add in factions and religion (which fragmented around the issue of slavery) and you're pretty much there. The only states rights were about whether states had the right to secede.
It was also predicted by Alexis du Toqueville more than 30 years before it happened. If you want a good understanding about the factors leading up to the civil war, read his Democracy in America (1835)
Comment has been collapsed.
History is written by victorious.
There is more context behind, sadly i didn't know U.S. history deep enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
actually, in this case, there's plenty of historical evidence written before the war, from which it's relatively easy to ascertain the issues.
Basically, it was mostly about slavery, but slavery was all-encompasing
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes even slaves travel to MX to escape from that, since our constitution of 1857 reaffirms banned slavery. Just a pretty Lincoln and Juarez short love tale after that.
Article 2. In the Republic all are born free. The slaves who walked on the national territory recover, by that fact alone, their freedom, and are entitled to the protection of the laws. -Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1857
Comment has been collapsed.
Extending this - What if current history is also a lie? It seems the entire current geopolitical situation on Syria is basically people fighting with puppets over who gets to build a pipeline to the EU passing through there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right now, it is. Nobody really hides that it is a battleground between the Saudi and Iran to determine which one will be the local power, with Russia actively trying to keep the region destabilised for its own interests, cashing on that the NATO isn't really that interested in the conflict; and with a little bit of Turkey jumping on the opportunity to do a little ethnic cleansing among the Kurds on the sideline.
Comment has been collapsed.
Welcome to the real world where nothing is as simple as it seems. And most of the times you will never get the full truth of the situations.
Corruption is rampant and many traits of our western society promotes it.
All I can say is always keep skeptical or at least critical mind about everything. It might broaden your mind. However ignorance might also be a bliss.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Civil War was fought over several issues slavery being one of the issues we would consider a bigger issue then the rest in todays world,(meaning that at there time in history some of the other issues may have been more important to them) but the truth of the matter is the war was fought over the states right to make there own decisions and a government that was over reaching interfering with trade deals and the such.
Comment has been collapsed.
nope, that's incorrect.
Trade deals was a power specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution (Article 1, section 8).
The northern states and the southern states had been in a power struggle nearly from the beginning. The southern states' economies were based around agriculture, specifically cotton, and required huge amounts of shitty manual labor. On top of that, the entire social structure was developed around the plantation life, of which slavery was a big part.
The northern states' economies were about industry. There was a lot more "progress", and because of the city/factory way of life, slavery would actually be counter-productive.
The northern and southern factions would clash over tariffs and free trade, but that was a congressional dispute that had been going on for a while. It's not accurate to say it was just about slavery, but it's not inaccurate to say it's just about slavery, because slavery was all-encompassing - if slavery ended, so did the southern way of life, and their economy would implode.
There had been a tenuous agreement in place, the Missouri Compromise (1820) that more or less agreed that north of the 36th parallel would be "free" states, and those south of that line would be "slave" states. new states admitted to the union alternated between "free" and "slave", to maintain the balance.
When Abraham Lincoln ran for president, a key part of his platform would be to outlaw slavery in the territories (not the states!). Once he got elected, southern states started to secede, and their secession proclamations all stated that it was about slavery. The only states-right at issue was whether or not states had the right to secede.
It's actually specifically laid out in the Florida Declaration of Secession:
A President has recently been elected, an obscure and illiterate man without experience in public affairs or any general reputation mainly if not exclusively on account of a settled and often proclaimed hostility to our institutions and a fixed purpose to abolish them. It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.
Mississippi's declaration of secession:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
[Georgia](http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html#Georgia:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
Virginia makes no mention as to the causes/reasons of secession.
Comment has been collapsed.
An interesting (Read)[http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-07-06/news/bs-ed-gettysburg-20130706_1_slavery-constitutional-convention-secession] more in line with what i was taught in school on the subject,that slavery was an big part of the issue but it was the teriffs the southern states were being charged compared to what the northern states were being charged(more then double).
Comment has been collapsed.
It's unfortunate that it's a horribly written article:
"But in 1860, the overriding issue of the day was not slavery in the territories: it was secession." is very misleading. Secession was the direct result of lincoln's push to abolish slavery in the territories.
It also argues that Lincoln could have staved off secession, which is clearly incorrect, as 8 states had seceded before lincoln was even inaugurated.
Tariffs did play a big role in the debate, because of the diametrically opposed impact of tariffs on the Northern states (benefited protective tariffs) and southern states (benefited from free trade). It's factually incorrect to say that sothern states were being charged more. Tariffs are not taxes levied on one's citizens, but rather import duties levied on all imported goods. The southern states exported more goods, and therefore the impact of tariffs fell disproportionately on the south.
However, not one article of secession mentioned tariffs, and the vast majority mentioned slavery. While tariffs certainly played a significant part, it was not as big an issue as that of slavery. Note that it's not just about abolition, it was also about property rights (the property being slaves).
Comment has been collapsed.
i thought the American Civil War was about stopping vampires, sheesh you learn something new every day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay so I'm from the United States and we're told all the time how the Civil war was over Slavery. I've been thinking though and some things don't make sense. If you look at all the countries in the 19th century that ended slavery, Only the USA and Haiti had a war to end slavery. The British paid slave owners to release their slaves.
So if the Union really wanted to end slavery why didn't they pay the Southern aristocrats to release their slaves? That alternative would have been way cheaper than the cost of the civil war.
I'm just wondering what other folks on Steam gifts think especially my fellow Americans. I don't wanna turn this into a debate about the ethics of slavery. Of course slavery is immoral... I'm simply skeptical of the narrative of our government has told us. I don't think Abe Lincoln is the hero we were told. He's the one that made our federal government ridiculously powerful.
History is written by the victors- Niccolo Machiavelli.
Comment has been collapsed.