Cleaning Up Our Collective Act

[Malrubius]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh...and if you want a clearer picture, if you've never read Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech, you might want to. He states very clearly what the reasons for the revolution are.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...cumentprint=76

Thanks, I'll check it out. You might also want to read Foote's "Civil War: A Narrative". It is 3000 some pages, but is very readable and incredibly detailed - in fact I think it may well contain the above speech. Okay - now I'm really done. Cheers!

[Humerox]

I have, in fact, read it. Was required when I took Civil War History. Pretty good account of the campaign.

Be well!

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Malrubius [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I know you were being sarcastic, as was I. I do understand that a lot of people WANT the Civil War to have been fought because of Slavery.

Yes, Slavery was related, but the idea that the union fought the secessionist southern states because of Slavery is a modern idea.

Lincoln freed the slaves for morale more than anything else.

I missed this because it flipped pages. The south revolted to protect slavery. The reasons the north gave as justification for fighting were much more muddled.

We're not so far apart. Think about it. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Humerox]

I think one of the reasons I'm so passionate about this is because it really reflects current circumstances in our "fight against terrorism". 100 years from now, kids will probably be taught that our current situation was caused by "mistaken intelligence" et al. But we, in the here and now, know better.


In the Civil War, both the sides knew that it was difficult to convince the public to support them with slavery as the primary reason. The politicians from the Southern states were successful in convincing the public that the Northern states were threatening their culture and way of life. The North's propaganda was that the Southern states would hamper the democratic base of the United States, if allowed to secede.

I know all about the "major reasons" for the Civil War. States' Rights, the election of Lincoln, Harper's Ferry, Uncle Tom's Cabin, for chrissake.

Spin says slavery wasn't the major cause of the war. Spin.

No wonder we get fooled all the time in the states, and it's no wonder the rest of the world calls the American public "sheep". We pretty much are...and instead of getting mad about it...we need to wake up and educate ourselves.

/rant off
/end of derail thread

[Hasbinbad]

The south wanted slavery in the new states (states rights).
The north wanted no slavery in the new states (but not abolition in the union).

Neither government wanted to abolish slavery in existing states.

Lincoln didn't want to abolish slavery in existing states. The Emancipation Proclamation was a military maneuver aimed at undermining the control of southern slave owners, and had nothing to do with any sort of philanthropy on Lincolns part.

It comes down to the south wanting to extend slavery into the west. That's basically what the whole debacle was over. Abolition was an unintended side-effect.

The south got rich by selling cotton to the north who got rich by turning it into thread and making cotton cloth or selling the thread to European countries to make linen.

Both sides were totally unethical.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lincoln didn't want to abolish slavery in existing states.

He would have if he could have done so. He expected it to wither and die via no new expansion, and by offering compensated emancipation.

His letter to Joshua Speed in 1855 pretty much summed up his feelings:

How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be take pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].


All the key issues of the Civil War were tied to slavery. Schlesinger describes the ivalidity of the states' rights argument best imo:

"...states' rights “never had any real vitality independent of underlying conditions of vast social, economic, or political significance.

From the close of the nullification episode of 1832-1833 to the outbreak of the Civil War, the agitation of state rights was intimately connected with the new issue of growing importance, the slavery question, and the principle form assumed by the doctrine was the right of secession. The pro-slavery forces sought refuge in the state rights position as a shield against federal interference with pro-slavery projects.... As a natural consequence, anti-slavery legislatures in the North were led to lay great stress on the national character of the Union and the broad powers of the general government in dealing with slavery. Nevertheless, it is significant to note that when it served anti-slavery purposes better to lapse into state rights dialectic, northern legislatures did not hesitate to be inconsistent."

[isitatomic]

What an exciting topical shift, who KNOWS what we'll be talking about next.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So the blanket of "states' rights" can be used to obfuscate the real reason for the war.

Doesn't get any more straightforward than that

Haven't read any of these texts you're bringing up, but one aspect of the Pro-Slavery arguments being made that I do recall is how plantation owners took a paternalistic stance, decrying how northern industrialists would treat "former" slaves simply as replaceable bottom-feeding wage slaves and nothing more, while on the plantations they were fed and housed and the owners otherwise provided for the personal needs of their slaves. Essentially a "quality of life" argument.

[Hasbinbad]

[quote=Humerox;48442]He would have if he could have done so. He expected it to wither and die via no new expansion, and by offering compensated emancipation.

His letter to Joshua Speed in 1855 pretty much summed up his feelings:[/quote]
I think his letter to Horace Greely more poignantly sums his feelings on slaves:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also so that"

[Hasbinbad]

failquote FTW

[Humerox]

All that meant Has, is that he felt the preservation of the Union was more important than anything.

Doesn't mean he didn't abhor slavery and want it abolished.