Cleaning Up Our Collective Act

[Humerox]

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

Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself. In a hundred years' time, the war in Iraq may be said to have been about Religion.

Just as the Civil War is taught in our public schools nowadays as to have been about Slavery. Pfft.

I think you misunderstood me.

States' rights arguments were tossed about on both sides meaning whatever was convenient for them at any given time.

From wikipedia:

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery was the chief cause of secession in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause. There was a striking contrast between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause secession and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech.

Similarly, Confederate President Jefferson Davis also reversed his original position, that the central cause of the war was the issue of slavery, arguing after the war that states' rights was its principal cause. While Southerners often used states' rights arguments to defend slavery, sometimes roles were reversed, as when Southerners demanded national laws to defend their interests with the Gag Rule and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. On these issues, Northerners wanted to defend their states' rights.

My statement about the war in Iraq was meant to be subtle sarcasm. May have been a mite too subtle.

The Civil War was about slavery, no ifs ands or buts. States' rights was the argument that defended the south's right to keep slavery without federal intervention. It also was argued that the south had the right to secede based upon those very same rights, however, what was the underlying reason for the south's desire to secede?

Slavery, and the protection of it.

So the blanket of "states' rights" can be used to obfuscate the real reason for the war. Leading back to my attempt at subtle sarcasm.

[Humerox]

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

[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!

[Malrubius]

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

I think you misunderstood me.

States' rights arguments were tossed about on both sides meaning whatever was convenient for them at any given time.

From wikipedia:

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery was the chief cause of secession in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause. There was a striking contrast between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause secession and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech.

Similarly, Confederate President Jefferson Davis also reversed his original position, that the central cause of the war was the issue of slavery, arguing after the war that states' rights was its principal cause. While Southerners often used states' rights arguments to defend slavery, sometimes roles were reversed, as when Southerners demanded national laws to defend their interests with the Gag Rule and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. On these issues, Northerners wanted to defend their states' rights.

My statement about the war in Iraq was meant to be subtle sarcasm. May have been a mite too subtle.

The Civil War was about slavery, no ifs ands or buts. States' rights was the argument that defended the south's right to keep slavery without federal intervention. It also was argued that the south had the right to secede based upon those very same rights, however, what was the underlying reason for the south's desire to secede?

Slavery, and the protection of it.

So the blanket of "states' rights" can be used to obfuscate the real reason for the war. Leading back to my attempt at subtle sarcasm.

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.

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

- Lincoln

I know you want it to have been because of Slavery. Actually, I think that is a really nice idea - I really do. And I wish it were the case, but it wasn't.

I will definitely grant that Emancipation was one of the great things that came out of the war, even though it was a side-effect.

You can respond of course, but I'm done. The thread should go back to rants and flames about our "collective act" now. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[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

[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"