Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
50 comments displayed.
#2
-
economicfreedom (01/08/2016) [-] 
www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/news/letter-president-lincoln-reply-horace-greeley-slavery-union-restoration-union.html
here's a letter from Lincoln himself saying that the civil war was about keeping the union together and not about slavery
here's a letter from Lincoln himself saying that the civil war was about keeping the union together and not about slavery
#67 to #2
-
strangesir ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Oh boy, bringing up the one thing people argue over here that never seem to ever be able to agree on anything about and always say "actually" or tell what they heard/saw/etc in response to what someone else heard/saw/etc.
#48 to #2
-
kingpongthedon ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-]
The North fought to preserve the Union. The South seceded largely, though not exclusively, due to anti-slavery sentiment. Both sides had different reasons for fighting but to say that it wasn't about slavery is ludicrous. Every single state that seceded mentions slavery as a primary motivating factor in their declarations of secession. For further reading, I'd direct you to the Cornerstone Speech by Confederate Vice-President, Alexander Stephens. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the highlight:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea that idea being liberty and justice for all ; 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."
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea that idea being liberty and justice for all ; 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."
#47 to #2
-
srskate (01/08/2016) [-] He often kept mum about things in order to not cause too much political backfire
President Lincoln had had concerns that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 might be reversed or found invalid after the war. He saw constitutional amendment as a more permanent solution.[39][40] He had remained outwardly neutral on the amendment because he considered it politically too dangerous.[41] Nonetheless, Lincoln's 1864 party platform resolved to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment.[42][43] After winning the election of 1864, Lincoln made the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment his top legislative priority, beginning his efforts while the "lame duck" session was still in office.[44][45] Popular support for the amendment mounted. and Lincoln urged Congress on in his December 6 State of the Union speech: "there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?"[46]
emphasis mine
President Lincoln had had concerns that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 might be reversed or found invalid after the war. He saw constitutional amendment as a more permanent solution.[39][40] He had remained outwardly neutral on the amendment because he considered it politically too dangerous.[41] Nonetheless, Lincoln's 1864 party platform resolved to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment.[42][43] After winning the election of 1864, Lincoln made the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment his top legislative priority, beginning his efforts while the "lame duck" session was still in office.[44][45] Popular support for the amendment mounted. and Lincoln urged Congress on in his December 6 State of the Union speech: "there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?"[46]
emphasis mine
#44 to #2
-
machiavellianhumor (01/08/2016) [-] slavery was divisive. even when they were drafting the articles of confederation and virginia plan or whatever it was called. they had to throw slavery out of the discussion because no agreements could be raised. it's still very possible that is lincoln being a politician and using the language to unite allies whereas with slavery it would cause problems to say it was about that
#28 to #2
-
WATCHAGUNADOBOUTIT ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] I mean that was the intent, but slavery was either just thrown in there or a little extra for winning, I can't remember.
#35 to #28
-
ilovehitler (01/08/2016) [-] Slavery had zero impact on the war. The slaves he 'freed' were the ones in rebelling states- states loyal to the north were allowed to keep their slaves. The rebelling states, which allegedly had their slaves freed by him, ignored his orders, because, y'know. They were rebelling.
#58 to #35
-
greyhoundfd (01/08/2016) [-] Actually, it had a huge impact on the war. Britain was considering coming into the civil war on the side of the Confederacy, since it wanted to prevent the United States becoming a world power by cutting out the heart of its agricultural industry, but by declaring the war about banning slavery, which had been illegal in Britain for decades, popular opinion turned enormously in favor of staying out of the war or even supporting the Union.
In fact, the involvement of Britain was so significant that it's arguable that Lincoln did not even fully want a war banning slavery, but simply needed the strategic benefit in order to keep the Empire out of the war.
In fact, the involvement of Britain was so significant that it's arguable that Lincoln did not even fully want a war banning slavery, but simply needed the strategic benefit in order to keep the Empire out of the war.
#46 to #35
-
srskate (01/08/2016) [-] Thats what the emancipation proclamation did, but then the 13th amendment was passed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And that amendment only got passed because the southern states weren't represented in congress due to the war
"President Lincoln had had concerns that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 might be reversed or found invalid after the war. He saw constitutional amendment as a more permanent solution.[39][40] ...Nonetheless, Lincoln's 1864 party platform resolved to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment.[42][43] After winning the election of 1864, Lincoln made the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment his top legislative priority, beginning his efforts while the "lame duck" session was still in office.[44][45] Popular support for the amendment mounted. and Lincoln urged Congress on in his December 6 State of the Union speech* "there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?"[46]"**
emphasis mine
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And that amendment only got passed because the southern states weren't represented in congress due to the war
"President Lincoln had had concerns that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 might be reversed or found invalid after the war. He saw constitutional amendment as a more permanent solution.[39][40] ...Nonetheless, Lincoln's 1864 party platform resolved to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment.[42][43] After winning the election of 1864, Lincoln made the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment his top legislative priority, beginning his efforts while the "lame duck" session was still in office.[44][45] Popular support for the amendment mounted. and Lincoln urged Congress on in his December 6 State of the Union speech* "there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?"[46]"**
emphasis mine
#49 to #46
-
ilovehitler (01/08/2016) [-] Huh, thought the thirteenth amendment was made after the war.
Guess I was wrong.
Guess I was wrong.
#51 to #49
-
srskate (01/08/2016) [-] reading further, it looks like it was actually ratified post war, but much of the leg work had been done prior. Ratification started at the beginning of 1865 and ended at the end of 1865, while the war ended min 1865. Lincoln was actually assassinated before the amendment passed.
I actually didn't know this till today. I read your comment and decided to double-check myself
I actually didn't know this till today. I read your comment and decided to double-check myself
#45 to #35
-
sketchysketchist (01/08/2016) [-] Didn't it have to do with being able to secede from the union.
Slavery had the impact in the sense that people who still wanted to keep slaves felt that they had the right to split the country in half where they make their own rules.
Lincoln wasn't having any of that **** , and as punishment took away their slaves first before abolishing slavery.
Then again, I don't know **** about history, thanks to elementary and middle school glossing over this **** as simply; Racist whites wanted slaves, Lincoln stopped them, MLK did a Cameo, and now we're here.
Slavery had the impact in the sense that people who still wanted to keep slaves felt that they had the right to split the country in half where they make their own rules.
Lincoln wasn't having any of that **** , and as punishment took away their slaves first before abolishing slavery.
Then again, I don't know **** about history, thanks to elementary and middle school glossing over this **** as simply; Racist whites wanted slaves, Lincoln stopped them, MLK did a Cameo, and now we're here.
#50 to #45
-
ilovehitler (01/08/2016) [-] Yeah, guess so.
I was just thinking that the war wasn't fought by the north to free the slaves, but I forgot that's essentially why the south left.
I was just thinking that the war wasn't fought by the north to free the slaves, but I forgot that's essentially why the south left.
#52 to #50
-
sketchysketchist (01/08/2016) [-] That's exactly correct.
I remember that the North didn't really give two ***** about slaves, they only wanted to abolish it because the South depended on slave labor more than the North. However, the South produced more of the important crap like crops and shizz, while the North was only good at mass production, i.e guns. The north didn't want to feel like the South had any power over them, because the North needed the south more, so they tried banning slavery to reduce their worth.
TLDR; No one gave a **** about slaves. North just didn't want to feel worthless.
I remember that the North didn't really give two ***** about slaves, they only wanted to abolish it because the South depended on slave labor more than the North. However, the South produced more of the important crap like crops and shizz, while the North was only good at mass production, i.e guns. The north didn't want to feel like the South had any power over them, because the North needed the south more, so they tried banning slavery to reduce their worth.
TLDR; No one gave a **** about slaves. North just didn't want to feel worthless.
#63 to #52
-
falxcariusbro (01/08/2016) [-] Actually the north had a huge agricultural industry. Remember that the north included the midwest, which is and was better at producing edible crops while the south focused on cash crops rather than edible ones or industry, this ended up backfiring spectacularly for them when they had constant supply shortages thanks to the blockade while the north could basically produce everything it needed at home. Just about the only real industry the confederacy had was in northern Virginia, and that was under constant threat from Union campaigns to capture Richmond. The only real advantage the south had was that they had much better generals who were able to keep the fight going for four years as opposed the one year it probably would have taken if they stayed out of it.
TL;DR the Union had bigger industry and farming, and basically would have won straight away if Confederate generals weren't so good.
TL;DR the Union had bigger industry and farming, and basically would have won straight away if Confederate generals weren't so good.
#64 to #63
-
sketchysketchist (01/08/2016) [-] Well I have no reason to doubt you, and I'm too lazy to do research.
Again, I wish they actually taught this in school rather than ************ that it was about slavery.
Again, I wish they actually taught this in school rather than ************ that it was about slavery.
#65 to #64
-
falxcariusbro (01/08/2016) [-] Well it was about slavery....to the southerners. The south seceded because they were afraid the election of Lincoln meant the republicans would push abolitionism on the south (which was totally f*cking wrong, he just didn't want slavery to be extended to the southwest). For the north, though, it was about putting down a rebellion and keeping America whole.
#10 to #2
-
bionicpanda (01/08/2016) [-] It wasn't mainly about slavery, but lincoln was for sure against it.
#18 to #10
-
twoeyedcyclops ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Actually it wasn't about slavery, watch the movie "Gettysburg" one of the union generals brother is having a conversation with a Confederate soldier
CS:what you fightin' this war for
US:To free the slaves of course, what are you fighting this war for?
CSur rights.
It wasn't about slavery, the confederacy wanted it to be states have the right to control themselves, decided how each state is run, the north (controlled by DC), wanted all states to be under the rule of DC, the south was fighting to make sure that each state ruled it's own.
To quote one of the southern generals "The state of Virginia, by god is gonna be run by Virginia, not some hot head in DC"
CS:what you fightin' this war for
US:To free the slaves of course, what are you fighting this war for?
CSur rights.
It wasn't about slavery, the confederacy wanted it to be states have the right to control themselves, decided how each state is run, the north (controlled by DC), wanted all states to be under the rule of DC, the south was fighting to make sure that each state ruled it's own.
To quote one of the southern generals "The state of Virginia, by god is gonna be run by Virginia, not some hot head in DC"
#36 to #18
-
angelusprimus (01/08/2016) [-] Yes, it was about states rights.
Which is why in the very first article of the Confederate Constitution it said:
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Basically forbidding any state in the Confederation to become non slave holding.
Actually, you should sit down and read the Constitution of the Confederation, it was actually more restrictive to the states rights than the US constitution, outright prohibiting and limiting states control far more.
Slave holding states were scared of Lincoln, because they considered him an abolitionist. They were actually more worried about his advisers than him.
But you are right in a way. It wasn't about slaves, not really. It was about economy. North was an industrial power, south agricultural. Differences between the two are in drastically different market and political needs. North didn't become abolitionist because of high morality, but because in early capitalism a wage worker is cheaper than the slave, so slaves became obsolete.
South's elite needed to keep the status quo, because their economic interests were in massive plantations. While average small farmer and city worker in the south were far poorer than in the north, plantation owners were massing incredible profits. Northern elites were factory owners. Who wanted to expand industrialization.
And when financial wants of those two different elites clashed, things detoriated quickly. Slaves were just an easy excuse. Just like "Freedom from tyranny of Washington!" was just an excuse of people who were not going to give up one iota of power, simply move it from Washington to Charleston. It was all about the allmighty dollar.
Also, the quote... I've spent years studying civil war and never saw it, so please educate me, who said that?
What Lee wrote in his letter to Davis was "When I had to chose between United States and my Virginia, I chose my state."
Which is why in the very first article of the Confederate Constitution it said:
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Basically forbidding any state in the Confederation to become non slave holding.
Actually, you should sit down and read the Constitution of the Confederation, it was actually more restrictive to the states rights than the US constitution, outright prohibiting and limiting states control far more.
Slave holding states were scared of Lincoln, because they considered him an abolitionist. They were actually more worried about his advisers than him.
But you are right in a way. It wasn't about slaves, not really. It was about economy. North was an industrial power, south agricultural. Differences between the two are in drastically different market and political needs. North didn't become abolitionist because of high morality, but because in early capitalism a wage worker is cheaper than the slave, so slaves became obsolete.
South's elite needed to keep the status quo, because their economic interests were in massive plantations. While average small farmer and city worker in the south were far poorer than in the north, plantation owners were massing incredible profits. Northern elites were factory owners. Who wanted to expand industrialization.
And when financial wants of those two different elites clashed, things detoriated quickly. Slaves were just an easy excuse. Just like "Freedom from tyranny of Washington!" was just an excuse of people who were not going to give up one iota of power, simply move it from Washington to Charleston. It was all about the allmighty dollar.
Also, the quote... I've spent years studying civil war and never saw it, so please educate me, who said that?
What Lee wrote in his letter to Davis was "When I had to chose between United States and my Virginia, I chose my state."
#37 to #36
-
twoeyedcyclops ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Firstly, thank you for the information, I didn't know alot of that.
As for the quote, it came from the movie Gettysburg.
As for the quote, it came from the movie Gettysburg.
#40 to #37
-
angelusprimus (01/08/2016) [-] Thanks, I'll have to look it up.
I had a great history teacher who told us to look up three things when we want to understand an historical war
1: What the official exucuse for war is for both sides
2: Who profits from what on both sides
and then you'll understand
3: actual reason why war happens.
Sadly, nearly every war in history was about money, land or some other resource.
I had a great history teacher who told us to look up three things when we want to understand an historical war
1: What the official exucuse for war is for both sides
2: Who profits from what on both sides
and then you'll understand
3: actual reason why war happens.
Sadly, nearly every war in history was about money, land or some other resource.
#42 to #40
-
twoeyedcyclops ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] sad but true, it's 99.9% of the time, you have something I want...so instead of meeting in a middle ground...I'm gonna bomb you until I get what I want.
#43 to #39
-
twoeyedcyclops ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] I never said they war, but they almost always have a touch of truth to them
#21 to #18
-
bionicpanda (01/08/2016) [-] Clearly, but saying that slavery had no role in the sparking of the civil war is just wrong, all im saying matey
#22 to #21
-
twoeyedcyclops ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Not arguing that, slavery was part of it no doubt. But the civil war was fought over control, not slaves. They were...a scapegoat so to speak
#23 to #22
-
bionicpanda (01/08/2016) [-] common knowledge for anybody who has taken USH in highschool lol
#13 to #12
-
bionicpanda (01/08/2016) [-] yeah he was, if you payed attention even a little in US history class you'd know that
#15 to #14
-
bionicpanda (01/08/2016) [-] I agree that public schools are biased as **** when it comes to this kind of stuff, and yes, he held the union over the idea of ending slavery, but in the end he was still against it.
#9 to #2
-
xbyronx (01/08/2016) [-] It was about slavery though. The union was only coming apart because of slavery, so, yes Lincoln was freeing slaves and heavily restricting the access and availability of slaves for the south, which pissed them off till they left and then he had to keep the union together. Slavery was absolutely a key issue. It's mentioned in every. single. one. Of the confederate states letters of succession.
www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/?referrer=www.bing.com/search?q=confederate%20states%20mention%20slavery%20as%20reason%20for%20leaving&go=Submit&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=set%20bing%20as%20default%20search%20engine%20in%20chrome&sc=2-39&sp=-1&sk=&ghc=1&cvid=2c218a1944f1439fb0cfd0d99ae34ac1
www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/?referrer=www.bing.com/search?q=confederate%20states%20mention%20slavery%20as%20reason%20for%20leaving&go=Submit&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=set%20bing%20as%20default%20search%20engine%20in%20chrome&sc=2-39&sp=-1&sk=&ghc=1&cvid=2c218a1944f1439fb0cfd0d99ae34ac1
#29 to #9
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
Slavery in the context of states rights
I'm sure some form of "i dislike the union because its tyrannical" was included in "every.single.one." of those declarations.
Southerners wanted the choice to decide if they would abolish slavery in their states since it was such a crucial part of their economy, the north dominated the political process and still does to a large extent.
Liberals like to rant about "muh ebbil rasist south" but the north didn't think blacks were really "people" either.
No poor southern white male is going to march off and die for the rights of a small portion of the population to own slaves, they did it because they wanted independence from the north. Period.
I'm sure some form of "i dislike the union because its tyrannical" was included in "every.single.one." of those declarations.
Southerners wanted the choice to decide if they would abolish slavery in their states since it was such a crucial part of their economy, the north dominated the political process and still does to a large extent.
Liberals like to rant about "muh ebbil rasist south" but the north didn't think blacks were really "people" either.
No poor southern white male is going to march off and die for the rights of a small portion of the population to own slaves, they did it because they wanted independence from the north. Period.
#33 to #29
-
rapterjesus (01/08/2016) [-] The poor have always, throughout history, been sent to fight under false pretenses for the benefit of the ruling class. To say that because Confederate soldiers were fed a narrative about states rights means that the war was about states rights, and not the huge financial stake the southern ruling class had in slavery, is absurd.
State's rights has been one of the biggest misdirections in the history of the United States. Money is supreme, and Slavery represented a huge investment on the part of the southerns upper class, which was at risk of being entirely liquidated with no compensation.
www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/
Even many of the mentions about states rights are in support of the right of the states to succeed or otherwise act to prevent the abolition of slavery.
You are right that talk of racism in reference to the civil war is stupid. The reason that the civil war was about Slavery was because of money, plain and simple.
State's rights has been one of the biggest misdirections in the history of the United States. Money is supreme, and Slavery represented a huge investment on the part of the southerns upper class, which was at risk of being entirely liquidated with no compensation.
www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/
Even many of the mentions about states rights are in support of the right of the states to succeed or otherwise act to prevent the abolition of slavery.
You are right that talk of racism in reference to the civil war is stupid. The reason that the civil war was about Slavery was because of money, plain and simple.
#57 to #33
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
"To say that because Confederate soldiers were fed a narrative about states rights means that the war was about states rights, and not the huge financial stake the southern ruling class had in slavery, is absurd. "
Except I'm not saying they were fed a false narrative about states rights, thats what you're saying. I'm implying the narrative is true. To imply that your historical revisionism 100 years later is somehow more valid than the reasoning of the soldiers involved, is absurd.
The fact is, history is written by the victor. You were raised under the belief of the "moral just union vs the evil racist south" narrative so you can carelessly dismiss the feelings of the soldiers who actually died as being brainwashed sheep. "Oh no, you didn't fight for what you thought you were fighting about Mr. Racist white southerner, my history book says so." Completely ridiculous.
You can dance around the issue as you like, say its about money or slavery or whatever you fancy. But at it's core is the South had the ability to control it's own actions there would have been no war. That is the core of the argument. If the south could choose to keep slavery peacefully through a vote among themselves, they would have. It's all states rights, no amount of Northern crying will change that.
I would agree that you as a person are plain and simple, but your arguments are basic and predictable.
Except I'm not saying they were fed a false narrative about states rights, thats what you're saying. I'm implying the narrative is true. To imply that your historical revisionism 100 years later is somehow more valid than the reasoning of the soldiers involved, is absurd.
The fact is, history is written by the victor. You were raised under the belief of the "moral just union vs the evil racist south" narrative so you can carelessly dismiss the feelings of the soldiers who actually died as being brainwashed sheep. "Oh no, you didn't fight for what you thought you were fighting about Mr. Racist white southerner, my history book says so." Completely ridiculous.
You can dance around the issue as you like, say its about money or slavery or whatever you fancy. But at it's core is the South had the ability to control it's own actions there would have been no war. That is the core of the argument. If the south could choose to keep slavery peacefully through a vote among themselves, they would have. It's all states rights, no amount of Northern crying will change that.
I would agree that you as a person are plain and simple, but your arguments are basic and predictable.
#68 to #57
-
rapterjesus (01/09/2016) [-] You degraded my points using the "Oh no, you didn't fight for what you thought you were fighting about Mr. Racist white southerner, my history book says so." DESPITE the fact I said clearly that I though racism wasn't a factor. And my beliefs do not come from some northerner textbooks, my beliefs wouldn't be found in public school textbooks.
What motivated Confederate soldiers to fight is irrelevant. The war wasn't started by the average citizen, it was started by the southern intelligentsia, who rightly understood that they could leverage the loyalties of the southern people to their states, loyalty that went all the way up to Robert E. Lee, an honorable warrior, whose motivations had nothing to do with slavery.
Money and the power of the ruling class started Slavery as we came to know it (see aftermath of bacon's rebellion) and money and power were the reason the ruling class fomented a full blown rebellion in the south.
What motivated Confederate soldiers to fight is irrelevant. The war wasn't started by the average citizen, it was started by the southern intelligentsia, who rightly understood that they could leverage the loyalties of the southern people to their states, loyalty that went all the way up to Robert E. Lee, an honorable warrior, whose motivations had nothing to do with slavery.
Money and the power of the ruling class started Slavery as we came to know it (see aftermath of bacon's rebellion) and money and power were the reason the ruling class fomented a full blown rebellion in the south.
#5 to #2
-
jdizzleoffthehizzl (01/08/2016) [-]
that doesn't mean him freeing the slaves was a bad thing, it was just a positive side effect
#3 to #2
-
oxidoferroso (01/08/2016) [-] Isn't that common knowledge?
Here in my country, we didn't talk much about the American Civil War but they did explain us the reasons and context.
Here in my country, we didn't talk much about the American Civil War but they did explain us the reasons and context.
#32 to #3
-
badsamaritan ONLINE (01/08/2016) [-] Civil war lessons are taken as anti-south propaganda now a days
