Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

Saying that the ACW was about slavery is much like stating that WWI was one big accident caused by the assassination of a minor noble. That was the trigger and made up a large part of the casus belli, but the path leading inexorably to war had farbdeeper foundations.

[Sheb]

Yeah, and not all Wehrmacht soldier fought because they wanted a thousand-year Reich, but that was still the reason of the war.

[Neonivek]

Yeah, and not all Wehrmacht soldier fought because they wanted a thousand-year Reich, but that was still the reason of the war.

Damn super hitler!

[Reelya]

Well, yeah. States want to keep enslaving people, but they can't, so they get pissed and leave.

Still doesn't sound so good for the South.

Ok... Here is a question for you.

What percent of the south owned a slave or benefited from a slave?

6% at its max.

Meaning 94% of the population fought for slavery that they in no way benefited.

But the question was who those 6% were?

It's like arguing the Iraq War had no connection to greed for oil, because most Americans who fought in it weren't sinister Texas oil barons. In any war most of the population aren't benefiting from whatever it is that the war is actually about.

If you broke down the South by e.g. class, then worked out how many were slave holders, you'd get a different picture.

[Sergarr]

That is not a healthy position to take, yes, slavery is bad and needed to be removed.  I am firmly on the Union side on that point, but what the Confederates wanted was more control of their laws and regulations, to them it wasn't about slaves, it was about people who had never set foot in their states dictating policy to them.

Pretty much the only reason why they wanted "more control of their laws and regulations" was so that they could continue to have slavery:

Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.

The existence of any other justification other than slavery is a result of historical revisionism.

Also, note how both Confederacy and Nazi Germany claimed to be fundamentally based in "laws of nature" and "universal acknowledgement of the truths", while putting all the others non-slavery/non-genocide-of-non-aryans as being "in violation of the laws of nature".

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Oh, yeah. The North was no saint, either. They mostly wanted to keep the nation together, not stop slavery, and I'm sure money has something to do with it.

It's just that the South wasn't good either. The war wasn't black against white. There /was/ no white.

[Neonivek]

If you broke down the South by e.g. class, then worked out how many were slave holders, you'd get a different picture.

The economics of the south were quite interesting.

A statistic of... iffy validity was... That the 10th richest Southerner back then was richer then the top ten richest Northerners combined.

While the South had a LOT more benefit for slavery then the North did (The North had mostly industrial work that didn't benefit from slave labor as much), wage labor wasn't too much better (well... outside... having rights ... sort of...)

So using this as a picture it means that the South would be many times more elitist then the North.

The existence of any other justification other than slavery is a result of historical revisionism

I'd kind of doubt that highly.

[Reelya]

Slavery served another purpose even if you didn't have slaves yourself: poor whites weren't the bottom caste in the system. So it also maintained class distinctions, meaning you weren't the literal bottom of the ladder. Tons of social systems, beliefs etc have this "underclass" for the working class to look down on.

Marxism had the "Lumpenproletariat" who were the despised class. The South had black slaves. India has the Dalits. It might be argued that the working class will always be aimed at some new enemy. We could abolish racism, but then the rage would focus on the unemployed, drug users or some other perceived OTHER. The despised group for a lot of people was Hippies back in the late 60s and 1970s. Basically the thing is, a society where all are equal is more appealing to either the very bottom caste (because they won't be downtrodden anymore), or the middle class (because they already see themselves as natural superior due to education, taste and culture etc. they can still look down on working-class types who come into better money). A lot of the working class themselves don't find that idea very appealing.

[Neonivek]

Slavery served another purpose even if you didn't have slaves yourself: poor whites weren't the bottom caste in the system. So it also maintained class distinctions, meaning you weren't the literal bottom of the ladder. Tons of social systems, beliefs etc have this "underclass" for the working class to look down on.

So workers might have joined the Civil war because slave abolishment would mean worse conditions for them? (Which as I said... were REALLY bad as it was)

Well that... and their bosses could have forced them.

---

Civil War is one of the harder things to learn about... because most history about it is there to evangelize.

Even WW2 I can actually look up information about everyday ordinary German soldiers, workers, and citizens... and how... they were surprisingly not monstrous as a whole... unlike how they are typically depicted (and once again... why do people keep depicting Germans as Aryans? The HUGE Irony was that not only was Hitler not one, but almost no one was). To admit I have to go through a lot of Super Hitler and how he almost single handedly destroyed the world without effort.

[Reelya]

No, you're thinking in too concrete terms. People don't rationally analyze conditions in that sense and make informed judgements. Like the article about Trump supporter's working class racism I linked before, it's about dignity and self-image. Plus fear mongering.

Creating a subclass allows the working class to feel better about their position in society. It's basically the same feeling as not coming dead last in a race when you're a kid. No matter how shit you did, if there was one person worse than you, you feel better about it.

That's also why people freak out when some "subclass" comes it and nabs middle-class jobs. e.g. Jews in Germany, Indians or Chinese in many places. It's really not about economic opportunity at all, since there's nothing really stopping you succeeding because of that. It's really that the formation of a new distinct class above your own pushes you down one peg.

[Neonivek]

No, you're thinking in too concrete terms. People don't rationally analyze conditions in that sense and make informed judgements. Like the article about Trump supporter's working class racism I linked before, it's about dignity and self-image. Plus fear mongering.

Creating a subclass allows the working class to feel better about their position in society. It's basically the same feeling as not coming dead last in a race when you're a kid.

So basically they are acceptable targets whose existence validates why your so good AND can be used as scapegoats for all your problems?

Wait... That... also sort of justifies why some states would use them as basically their entire platform for going to war too. In that they are blaming loss of Slavery and the necessity of White Power...

[Reelya]

This article seems interesting:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/the-working-class-wounds-hidden-behind-trump-voters-racism-20160630

“I do flooring, drywall, renovations, all sorts of construction,” he said. He supports Trump because of all “the Hispanics you see on construction sites. They’ll do the job for less than I will.” Lovell’s animus toward Hispanics goes beyond the workplace. He mentioned a recent home-renovation job.

“I fixed up this lady’s three-bedroom house she rents for $800 a month,” he said. “It was trashed by Hispanics. She puts a family in every bedroom and one in the garage. She spends $10,000 to $15,000 to renovate it every couple a years. I said, ‘Why don’t you rent to a White family? It won’t get trashed.’ She said, ‘If I do, one of them loses their job and I don’t get the rent. If one of the Hispanics loses their job, I’ll still get the rent from someone.’”

I didn’t bother pointing out that cramming four families into a single-family home is a sure way to trash it—regardless of their ethnicity. Instead, I told Lovell I’d seen similar situations many times in New York City. “She is probably charging each family close to full rent, raking in $2,500 or more a month,” I said. “That’s why she can afford to renovate it every two years.”

Lovell was silent, processing what I’d said. I added, “They’re being exploited as well.”

Basically you have a case here where multiple people are getting financial gain from the poverty of an underclass, then spitting "peh, disgusting untermensch". Then someone points out that an entire family crammed into one bedroom by the landlord are being exploited, not being sneaky, and the guy just can't process that. The article goes on to point out how much the white guy he was talking to relied on welfare when he raised his family. So you have a part-time worker, raising a family with government support (food stamps, medicaid, family assistance money), and he gets some outlet by looking down on Mexicans and blaming them for the fact he can't get a job.

[mainiac]

Slavery was just one of the issues that lead to the American Civil War, best to keep that in mind.

Hey, do me a favor here.  Name the others.  Please let me just mention ahead of time:
The tariff crisis was settled about 30 years prior without bloodshed and tarrifs were very low at the time of the Civil War.
The southern states didn't have much of a problem with federal supremacy

So, let's just avoid those anachronisms   With those mentioned, what are the issues that prompted the civil war?

[Neonivek]

what are the issues that prompted the civil war?

Wasn't the idea of a succession war on the table for a while before the Civil War? (wait succession? is that the right term?)

[Reelya]

Secede => Secession