The US Civil War was fought over slavery

boing
61

That a very minor risk. The Civil War wouldn’t have happened without slavery which was the reason the Southern states became more and more alienated from the North and was the reason their culture and economy were so different and was the source of their various conflicts. Calling the Civil War righteous (which is a bizarre way of framing it) has nothing to do with the reasons why the South seceded and attacked the North. The North’s response to secession and military attack was pretty much what you’d expect, and wasn’t about slavery, but about States breaking from the Union and waging war against US troops. So it’s really simple to say that the root cause of the war was slavery. While there were other minor grievances or differences (State’s right’s being the weirdest, since the South’s strangle-hold on Congress and successes in controlling the Feds. was effectively depriving the Northern states of more rights than the reverse), without then there would still have been a eventual major conflict under the circumstances based on the divisions slavery caused. That in no way suggests that the Union was just in how they waged the war or that it was “righteous.” Even if there’s a risk of people assuming the Union were fighting to end slavery, it’s still preferable that the simple truth that the Civil War was about slavery is abundantly clear, since it’s only after that’s made clear that the reality of the conflict can be understood.

Suggesting the Civil War was not fought over secessionists fighting to preserve the institution of slavery they felt was threatened, but over their other differences is like suggesting that WW II wasn’t started by Germany invading Poland, but by German trade disputes with Britain and France.

6 Likes
62

I’m not saying that slavery has nothing to do with the Civil War, or that the South were the good guys. Both of those statements would be daft. Slavery was a large part of what the Civil War was about, but not the ONLY thing it was about.

This is more in line of what I’m arguing. I suppose my whole point is to avoid painting the Civil War (or any war) as black and white (pardon the choice of words), and more in shades of murky grey. The Union didn’t just decide “We hate slavery, down with the Confederacy!”, which is how it is often painted. This is how it was taught to me from grade school to high school. I worry about things like this, since it glosses over the complexity of things, the pure ambiguity of it, and we risk forgetting that a large part of Northern history, even leading up to the Civil War, was about as bad as the South’s.

63

On the one hand, Mark has more comments on his thread. On the other hand, your thread achieved Godwin in fewer moves.

3 Likes
64

Yeah, I am gonna have to take another shower today. And the worst part? If I had been born at the wrong time at the wrong place, while I am basically a pacifist I still may have turned out to be a baddy.

1 Like
65

I’ll get the smelling salts.

66

You have seriously got my back. fistbump

9 Likes
67

Every significant grievance the South had against the North related either directly or indirectly to slavery. Take away slavery and all the other differences evaporate.

5 Likes
68

We’re going to have to agree to disagree, I’m afraid. Again, I think slavery was a cause, even a major cause. But in my cases, I still think it was more a symptom.

I don’t think anyone can say any large, bloody, terrible war was about a single thing. And I think it is dangerous to think so, much less teach it as so. Thousands of little things can lead to great atrocities, more readily than any single thing.

69

Again, not being argumentative or dismissive, but a symptom of what? From contemporary writing and accounts, this should be straightforward to settle.

6 Likes
70

OK, I’ll bite. Can you name a major cause of the civil war that did NOT relate directly or indirectly to slavery?

2 Likes
71

BTW, noone is attacking you personally. And it is okay, even great to dissent. I can send you links to ideas I have been publicly ridiculed about :slight_smile:

3 Likes
72

While it’s of value to have a granular and nuanced understanding of history, you seem to be trying to escape basic realities of the conflict by an argument from nuance while not offering an alternate nuanced account. The core issues of the conflict were all tied to slavery. At the time the Confederacy said this over and over in plain terms. Their own words explain their motivations unambiguously, and they were very un-nuanced words.

Frankly, I don’t often see it painted that way. The person who gave the talk did, and it was surprising that he said something so daft. Among the historically illiterate there will be all kinds of historical illiteracy, which is why there is the widespread misconception that the Civil War was not about slavery. When I was in school the conflict was described as a Confederate rebellion with a Union military response to end that rebellion and reunite the states, and that’s the way most serious historians describe the conflict. We also were taught about the 13th Amendment, which would make no sense being passed after the war ended if the war was fought to end slavery. Though now that I live in Texas, our schools teach a very different account of the “War of Northern Aggression,” and frankly education across the South would do well to quit lying to themselves pretending their ancestor were victims for waging an unprovoked war against their own country to protect their “right” to treat other human beings as property which they felt was threatened. That’s a far, far more serious misconception that has serious negative social consequences in the South, while the incorrect view that the North fought to end slavery, while utterly wrong, isn’t nearly as toxic.

3 Likes
73

I get that this was said mostly in jest but…
May I give as kind as possible Fuck You to the idea that WW-II and specifically the Holocaust may not be discussed in polite company. It comes up in conversation between historically literate people, especially for Ashkenazi Jews and to a lesser extent Russians and Europeans is an intimate part of their family history.
Godwin is a flag best dropped for inappropriate comparison(ie. national health care) to the Nazi regime, especially by people fitting the description of ubermensch rather than untermensch, not for mentioning that series of events in the course of a conversation.

10 Likes
74

I figured as such. I don’t mind the disagreement, I find it quite… agreeable. I actually don’t think this is a case of total disagreement, but more of a mild skirmish over particulars and scope. We both agree that Slavery was a major cause of the war. You seem to be in the 90-99% camp, and I’m more in the 75-89% camp. As far as differences go, I’m fine with that.

I did previously. And yes, a lot of those causes had slavery as a factor, in many of them I think slavery was more a symptom, and in some a rallying cry. Obviously, beyond these, slavery as an institution was also a large cause.

I’m sorry if you don’t see it that way. I just don’t see any evidence to be able to say “the Civil War was 100% about slavery”. And I do see, how most causes “relate directly or indirectly to slavery” (as Brainspore put it), but I’m not going to count indirect relations as direct ones, even if they share a common element; slavery. The economic, cultural, political, and ideological differences between the North and South often had slavery as a factor, but many of them weren’t wholly because of slavery.

You didn’t go to my grade school, or high school, then. This is exactly what I was taught (along with WWII was about the liberation of the Jews, the Revolutionary War was about the price of Tea and freedom for all!)

To clarify, please don’t think I’m saying that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, or even that it wasn’t a rather major cause. Please don’t think I’m siding with the states rights drivel, or the “War of Northern Aggression” drivel. I agree with you 99%, its just the 1% that we’re really arguing over. And I have a feeling that if we were to sit down over beer, and a loud evening, we’d probably find that we pretty much wholly agree, but some of our definitions, or terms, are just different (or at least I’d hope to think this!).

75

Conversion here has not yet devolved into accusations of national socialism. We are barely getting into attacks on character!

I think this has been a fine conversation and a legitimate historical comparison. Also to note Germany has made it illegal to deny the holocaust. The U.S. questions if the confederate flag should fly over U.S. government buildings? Give me a break. How does America still take itself seriously? We also pretend Manzanar never happened, we didn’t exterminate and then humiliate the remaining native Americans, on and on…

That we ever pretendef the civil war was over anything but slavery is a shame. I think Germany has it right regarding the holocaust, they admit their shame and might become better for it. We deny ours.

8 Likes
76

When I lived near an Air Force Base, I had a neighbor who worked at the AFB who was a member of the German Luftwaffe, in its current iteration. Since Germany buys F-16s from the States, his job was related to liaising with Americans about F-16s.

We BSed a lot and when it came around, I was struck at his personal shame, as a German, for WWII. I actually consoled him that he didn’t know anyone who did that stuff and I didn’t believe he would either.

But goddamn he was solemn about that. I’ll never forget it.

6 Likes
77

Now if they would stop being rightous assholes over Greek Keynesian stimulation when they are up and the PIIGS owe money.

78

I think everyone (well, everyone with a shred of intellectual honesty and the ability to read) agrees that the reason for secession was slavery.

The war, though - the part with all the guns and the fancy uniforms and battle flags and jaunty tunes - started months after secession.

From the POV of the CSA, US troops being stationed within the territorial borders of South Carolina (surreptitiously - their commander was not acting under orders from his superiors when he originally garrisoned Fort Sumter) was an act of military aggression by a foreign power. The CSA sought a diplomatic solution and was rebuffed or ignored, while the USA attempted to resupply the fort by sea, rather than evacuate it. Then with the shooting and the marching and killing.

From the POV of the USA, a bunch of states had formed their own confederation (in clear violation of the US Constitution) claiming they had the right to unilaterally secede from the USA. They possibly didn’t NOT have that right, but probably didn’t have that right… It had been a bit of a point of contention between the two major political parties in the country (regardless of what they were calling themselves that week) since the founding of the country (there were founders on both sides). Then yada yada yada, CSA says “get off my lawn”, and it’s all battle hymns and war crimes and soooo many dead conscripts (and volunteers and professional soldiers, too… But O! the conscripts).

Eventually the South loses its bid for independence (and in the process its abominable “peculiar institution”), as the North puts down a particularly dangerous rebellion (not so much in the sense of the rebels themselves leaving the land of cotton to physically endanger innocent yankees - though sure there’s that - but in the sense that allowing the rebellion to stand sets a precedent for further secession, in addition to weakening the young nation by more than half of its economic power, and enriching its foes - past and/or potential - in equal measure).

And also they ended slavery.

So the South seceded over slavery, but the war was fought over secession. This point is essentially granted by the - let’s say gentleman - in the video, in between mouthfuls of carefully tailored non sequitir and jingoistic hogwash.

I admit it’s easy to get caught up in the magnificent pageantry of the dance of the shifting goalposts, as the stated question goes from “why was the war fought” “to why did the South secede” and back again, sublimely substituting an answer for one as an answer for the other. I mean, all that glorious handwaving in the middle!

I had intended to say more of substance, rather than ending on a hyperbolic diatribe that could easily be misconstrued as being directed at BB/BBS contributors instead of the producers of the propaganda piece under discussion, but it’s so late it’s early here (and no longer THAT early) and it seems I may have misplaced one or more of my wits. So.

endRant;
this.sleepStart()

3 Likes
79

Sucks that their admittance hasn’t prevented their shameful, cruel and nearly racist treatment of Greece.

1 Like
80