The Civil War: ‘A conspiracy of amnesia’

[RJKarl]

I could have married Morgan Fairchild twenty-five years when I was hanging out with her sister, but I didn't.

A lot of those near misses "could have" but they didn't. Thus you don't have a point.

 

[Deadbolt]

I could have married Morgan Fairchild twenty-five years when I was hanging out with her sister, but I didn't.

A lot of those near misses "could have" but they didn't. Thus you don't have a point.

I haven't won a million dollars, but that doesn't mean I won't. If the slavery issue hadn't been the spark that ignited war, it doesn't mean something else wouldn't have.

 

[PhDeac]

The same state almost plunged the country into civil war over another issue less than 30 years earlier so it is incorrect to say slavery is the only issue that could have triggered it.

The fact that other issues almost triggered a civil war and slavery did is strong evidence against your point.

 

[WakeForestRanger]

Strong evidence against it?

I think the earlier crisis was defused through superior leadership. Jackson being a popular southern president gave him the ability to deal with South Carolina in ways that Lincoln simply couldn't. Having Henry Clay around instead of pushing up daisies surely helped as well.

 

[RJKarl]

I haven't won a million dollars, but that doesn't mean I won't. If the slavery issue hadn't been the spark that ignited war, it doesn't mean something else wouldn't have.

But it didn't.

 

[mfdeacs99]

How hard is it to understand that the South fought over slavery, but the North did not?

The North did not fight this war over slavery. They didn't care about black rights. They fought to preserve their economic advantage.

 

[Deadbolt]

How hard is it to understand that the South fought over slavery, but the North did not?

The North did not fight this war over slavery. They didn't care about black rights. They fought to preserve their economic advantage.

Are you saying the war, for the south, was about the principle of slavery or the economic and political ramifications of ending it? If the latter, then I'm with you. If the former, I disagree.

 

[RJKarl]

Are you saying the war, for the south, was about the principle of slavery or the economic and political ramifications of ending it? If the latter, then I'm with you. If the former, I disagree.

You can't separate the two to make you feel better morally. They are totally interrelated.

The leaders of the Confederacy considered blacks subhuman and it to be the natural way of the world to treat them like chattel. They were willing to die to keep this in place.

 

[Deadbolt]

You can't separate the two to make you feel better morally. They are totally interrelated.

The leaders of the Confederacy considered blacks subhuman and it to be the natural way of the world to treat them like chattel. They were willing to die to keep this in place.

I don't feel anything with regards to slavery. It's existed for thousands of years and has happened to more cultures than I can count. It's an unfortunate part of human history, end of story.

However, given the stance BOTH sides had in regards to their feelings towards blacks, I highly, highly doubt any war would have been fought at that time on their behalf alone. Now, you take away the workforce of a major industry and potentially depress an entire economy? Now you have reason for war.

 

[RJKarl]

The workforce IS slavery. There is no way to separate the two pieces.

 

[Deadbolt]

The workforce IS slavery. There is no way to separate the two pieces.

I'm not disagreeing with you there. I'm saying the war doesn't happen without the economic and political aspect.

 

[RJKarl]

You are trying to parse the unparsable (nice new word).

What you are trying to say is you can differentitate between the vodka and the orange juice in a screwdriver. Without either, the screwdriver doesn't exist. Thus you can't take them away from each other.

 

[mfdeacs99]

No.

The North would never have attacked the South to stop slavery. The North enjoyed profiting and condemning vaguely at the same time. Under no cirumstances would the North - who reviled blacks -have risked their blood and treasure until and unless a real threat emerged - like secession.

However, the South would bolt to ensure slavery.

Two happened, and the North belated used it as cover for the fact that the war was simply about economic advatange for the North. Just because number two happened doesn't mean that the reality of number one disappears.

If the North really fought over slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation would have happened in 1861, and it would have covered the North and the South (the Proclamation only cover rebelling states).

How the hell did rj ever get into Wake Forest?

 

[MBDeac08]

The North wasn't just about enjoying the economic benefits of slavery, they also feared the expansion of slavery. Expansion into new state would result in an unbalanced Senate which would allow the slave states to control matters on a federal level.

While Northerners were not waiting at the border to embrace run away slaves, they were much more accepting of blacks there pre-War. Read the autobiography of Frederick Douglass or Harriet Jacobs for their accounts of life in the north as runaways.