Print

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

[mainiac]

Eh...  Except they granted black Americans citizenship and (after a delay) suffrage.  But didn't extend that right to the Native Americans.

Just seems like the North had an ulterior motive (economically undermining the South).

...history isn't a simple binary where causes are done overnight?  Do you remember when Obama was elected on a mandate of end the wars and universal healthcare?  Did he work hard for both of them?  Did he accomplish either of them?

The republican party was founded on the principle of abolition.  Unsurprisingly when they took control of the government they pushed an abolitionist platform quickly.  That doesn't mean all racial problems were solved forever.

Then please enlighten us how your schooling told you

If a Yankee can be elected president without a single Souther elector

Please enlighten us how your schooling told you this caused the war, with those sources you hate me for not including.

[Neonivek]

One of the major reasons why some people say the North was pro-abolishment is that... well...

They simply didn't benefit from Slavery... In fact it kind of got in the way.

[mainiac]

Dear lord, somebody on the internet described a hypothesis as a hypothesis and not a fact!

[Rolan7]

Please enlighten us how your schooling told you this caused the war, with those sources you hate me for not including.

...Why, when nobody claimed it "caused the war"?
It was a factor, and the reason should be plainly obvious.  The North voted for Lincoln, and no Southern states did.  They were right to feel unrepresented and worried.

One of the major reasons why some people say the North was pro-abolishment is that... well...

They simply didn't benefit from Slavery... In fact it kind of got in the way.

That's part of why the South resented the North aggressively pushing abolition via the federal government.  The North didn't stand to lose nearly as much.

[mainiac]

Oh I'm sorry, I did have that mixed up.  That was what he offered as evidence that tariff policies were anti-south.  The fact that Abraham Lincoln didn't receive any electoral votes from slave states in 1860 was the evidence that tariff policies in the 1850s (and before?) were anti-south.  Now I've got it.

[Rolepgeek]

Then please enlighten us how your schooling told you

If a Yankee can be elected president without a single Souther elector

Please enlighten us how your schooling told you this caused the war, with those sources you hate me for not including.

So...I guess 'No Offense' means "I despise you", then?

So, way I was taught in my AP US History class (established to make it clear this isn't something I'm half-remembering from fifth grade, it's something I'm 3/4-remembering from Junior year), there was a shitton of tension leading up right until the civil war for many reasons, top of the list being slavery, and in turn, worry about whether this was something it was okay for central government to have say over versus state governments, as well as typical cultural divides, economic tensions and misaligned incentives and so forth and so on. Worry about Southern states being trampled over by the north's greater population and clout in the House, if not Congress, and how long it would last before they got both houses and RUINED EVERYTHING (What? Everyone engages in fearmongering, whether it's fear of people coming to take your [X], or people not giving you [X] when you just NEED it so BADLY, or letting people do [X] to you. It's useful in democracy.), met with 'Oh wait whose President? How about fuck you, if you're not gonna even give a shit about us anyway'.

And if you're able to become president without needing a certain portion of the constituency...well, you know what Republicans say about the 47% and all. Longstanding tradition, as anyone in Georgia will tell you.

Oh I'm sorry, I did have that mixed up.  That was what he offered as evidence that tariff policies were anti-south.  The fact that Abraham Lincoln didn't receive any electoral votes from slave states in 1860 was the evidence that tariff policies in the 1850s (and before?) were anti-south.  Now I've got it.

Ah, no, I don't know if you could tell, but that was meant to end with an ellipse, and had little to do with the tariffs being anti-south. It was my way of saying 'they could see which side of the hill the shit was rolling towards, and they no longer wanted to be on that hill'.

[mainiac]

No offense but I dont trust a junior year history class farther then I can throw it.  The main reason why I have such a distaste for the southern revisionism is because I realize now how much bullshit my own high school history class spoon fed me on the subject.

This population argument you are presenting is just the same thing as the states rights argument.  Sure, it's states rights but states rights regarding what?  Well slavery!  It's the population of the free states and the slave states that they are worried about.  That isn't a new reason, that's the same reason.

I just think that Old Abe had it right when he saw the coming conflict:

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

[Frumple]

And if you're able to become president without needing a certain portion of the constituency...

... you're roughly every president in the history of the nation? Like. Having voted in the last few election cycles. This whole line about foo's demographic not giving representative bar any votes being acceptable contributory grounds for violent rebellion is just... have we forgotten how our election system works at some point during this discussion, or is some kind of point trying to be made here I'm missing?

[mainiac]

And if you're able to become president without needing a certain portion of the constituency...

... you're roughly every president in the history of the nation?

But when Clinton does it two months from now we will need to fight civil war 2.0.

[Egan_BW]

Yeah, but this time the good guys will win!
XD :P XD :L :P :P :D XP XP XL :L :P XD

[Rolepgeek]

I live in Oregon, by the way. So I don't think I've got much southern revisionism.

Slavery is one of the things, the most visible one of the things, that they were concerned with states rights over. In their view, that was their livelihood. And they made plenty of their own arguments looking at Wage Slavery and making workers that much less of an investment that you didn't have to bother to care for them...

Northerners were in the moral right, but not by much, on that front.

And if you're able to become president without needing a certain portion of the constituency...

... you're roughly every president in the history of the nation? Like. Having voted in the last few election cycles. This whole line about foo's demographic not giving representative bar any votes being acceptable contributory grounds for violent rebellion is just... have we forgotten how our election system works at some point during this discussion, or is some kind of point trying to be made here I'm missing?

This war is what established that this is just something you have to deal with and you don't get to throw a fit because you and all your bodies and all your buddies' buddies and literally everyone you share a common cultural background with didn't get your way. It's established now. But when a cultural block of the country is essentially ignored? Yeah, it's common now, but mid to late 1800s was where that was only just starting to show up, far as I remember. Before then, everyone was fairly agricultural, and while North had trade and finance, it wasn't stronghold of major industry and economic power yet. There was a lot less resentment to foster either way, though it started there.

[mainiac]

It's a nice theory but the chronology is a problem.  Lincoln didn't get any votes in the south because Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in almost all of the south. The southern state governments were adamantly opposed to republicans before the election took place.  While losing may have radicalized them further the fact is that they were already radicalized when the government was still securely in their hands.  Also, the previous election saw every new england state vote for Fremont who lost.  New England did not respond by seceding nor by radicalizing.

[Rolepgeek]

It's a nice theory but the chronology is a problem.  Lincoln didn't get any votes in the south because Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in almost all of the south. The southern state governments were adamantly opposed to republicans before the election took place.  While losing may have radicalized them further the fact is that they were already radicalized when the government was still securely in their hands.

The fact that he wasn't on the ballot and still won is my exact point here.

You are literally affirming what I'm saying, though with different definitions of the term radical. Though 'securely in their hands' is pushing it hard enough to break the skin.

[Frumple]

I seem to have lost the point, somewhere. If your entire population votes for a critter and they don't win, the takeaway is probably that your candidate was a relatively poor one, not... whatever you're trying to say it was. At least insofar as this whole american election system goes, and by and large went previously.

[Rolepgeek]

I seem to have lost the point, somewhere. If your entire population votes for a critter and they don't win, the takeaway is probably that your candidate was a relatively poor one, not... whatever you're trying to say it was. At least insofar as this whole american election system goes, and by and large went previously.

If your entire population votes for a candidate and they don't win, the takeaway is that you don't get a say in the election system anymore, which, if you think the other populations dislike you, means you're fucked.